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