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.
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.