St. Louis Archbishop Carlson claims to be uncertain if he knew sexual abuse was a crime

SL Post Dispatch ^ | 06/10/2014 | By Lilly Fowler

[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.

“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” Carlson replied. “I understand today it’s 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.

“I’m not sure if I did or didn’t,” 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.

[Uncle Chip]

When the Archbishop said “I’m 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).

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.

Watch it.

What was the question that was asked just before his answer???

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's just it. There should be no difference between what's in the written record of the testimony, and what's in the video of that same testimony.

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?

[Uncle Chip]

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.

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???

[Mrs. Don-o]

I would assume that a written court record would be hard to edit, because it is in the physical custody of the court, and tampering with it would presumably be a criminal offense.

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

I pointed out the key discrepancy between the written court record and the video.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, this is getting really tedious, but you still don't have the facts straight. You say it's just me and "the guy (Fr. Zuhlsdorf) who's pouring your Kool-Aid." But it's not just me and Fr. Z. It's Abp. Carlson (who was there), Abp. Carlson's attorney Charles Goldberg (who was there), and the actual written record.

--- and Mr. Goldberg himself is the one who noted at this point in the deposition “You’re 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.

We're through.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[FredZarguna]

Actually, if you read the transcript, things get considerably worse for Abp Carlson, [and also, sadly, for Fr. Z., who is clearly lying.]

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?

[rwa265]

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.

---

Fred, I would ask you to read the entire transcript before making up your mind. As I said in post 28, I have mixed feelings on the testimony. I’m sure you would still have problems with the testimony, but it is clear that Carlson was upset with how the Adamson case was handled, and it is also clear from other sections of the transcript that he did know that sexual abuse of a child is a crime. Here is an example from Page 98 of the transcript, where they are discussing a memo written by Carlson in 1984:

Q. You then go on to state, “I asked Father Adamson about this, and he admitted, and, in fact, he had abused the boy during that period of time.” Did I read that correctly?

A. Correct.

Q. So you and McDonough asked Adamson if he had abused (redacted), and he admitted having done the crime against the kid, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you so record that?

A. As I record it is how I would have been told.

Q. You write, “I did not go into the sexual activity, but Father Adamson agreed that it probably would be first degree sexual contact.” That’s what you wrote?

A. That’s what I wrote.

Q. And you also knew that when first degree criminal sexual conduct is written and recorded, that is the most serious of the sex crimes against a child. You know that?

A. Correct.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hello, rwa,

Thank you for this comment. It would be clear to those who read the record that Abp. Carlson knew that sexual intercourse with an underage person is a crime. (You found the reference, from page 98. Good catch.)

There's a 0% possibility that anyone, especially anyone in Carlson's position, would not know that or even claim not to know it. It simply doesn't make sense. Furthermore, it does not pass the "Cui bono?" test. Carlson is not a party in this case, has been charged with no crime, is not facing any allegation that he covered anything up. The immediately preceding transcript shows that there was some confusion or ambiguity about what question he was responding to.

Another indication is that Carlson, in the clarification he put on the Archdiocese website, is the very one who posted the full deposition and even highlighted the page numbers (p. 108-109) where the relevant testimony is found. Why would he do that if he thought it would not exonerate him? Again, "Cui bono?"

At worst --- and Plaintiff's counsel would have known this --- it showed an inadvertent and momentary confusion on the stand.

OK, now I'm well and truly done.

[Uncle Chip]

<>it is also clear from other sections of the transcript that he did know that sexual abuse of a child is a crime.<>

Sure — he is parsing his words and saying that today he realizes that it is a crime. That is what he wants you all to believe — that at some point in his adult priestly life he had a hoozaah moment, the trumpets sounded, angels descended from on high, and he had a heavenly discernment that child molestation was a crime — exactly when he’s not sure — it could have been the day before the deposition for all he remembers.

But at the time he was dealing with it decades ago he is clearly saying that he did not know that it was a crime and years later he still did not know according to his deposition:

Anderson: “Archbishop, you knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid.”

Carlson: “I’m not sure I knew whether it was a crime or not. I understand today it’s a crime.”

Anderson: “When did you first discern it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid?”

Carlson: “I don’t remember.”

Anderson: “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?”

Carlson: “I don’t remember that either.”

Anderson: “Do you have any doubt in your mind that you knew that in the ‘70s?”

Carlson: “I don’t remember if I did or didn’t.”

Anderson: “In 1984, you are a bishop, an auxiliary bishop in the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. You knew it was a crime then, right?”

Carlson: “I’m not sure if I did or didn’t.”

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/06/archbishop_robert_j_carlson_didnt_know_raping_kids_is_a_crime.php

<> rwa265: Here is an example from Page 98 of the transcript, where they are discussing a memo written by Carlson in 1984:<>

As you can see from the transcript above this is a memo from a bishop who claims that he did not know at the time he wrote it that adults having sex with children was a crime.

He either did not know that it was a crime OR he knew it was a crime and lied under oath about not knowing that it was a crime — so which was it???

[Uncle Chip]

It would be clear to those who read the record that Abp. Carlson knew that sexual intercourse with an underage person is a crime.

So then he committed perjury and lied under oath when he swore otherwise.

Thank You --

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, I'll jump in again to say that was uncalled-for.

There's no reason for perjury, there would be no benefit for perjury, there is no conceivable motivation for perjury. The document itself shows that Charles Goldberg, Carlson's attorney, asked at this point in the deposition, "You're talking about mandatory reporting?" I don't know anything about the acoustic quality of the room, or Bishop Carlson's aural acuity or Mr. Anderson's clarity and volume, but apparently Carlson wasn't the only one who thought he was asking a run-on question about mandatory reporting.

And since Carlson already had it in the record that he understood the criminal nature of statutory rape --- as every one of them knew, Carlson, Anderson and Goldberg --- this continued attempt to discredit Carlson as a witness is either pointless or malicious.