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.
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.
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.
<>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.”
<> 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???