Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Documents Boston.com Abuse in the Catholic Church
HomePredator priestsScandal and coverupThe victimsThe financial costOpinion
Cardinal Law and the laityThe church's responseThe clergyInvestigations and lawsuits
Interactive2002 scandal overviewParish mapExtrasArchivesDocumentsAbout this site
2014 update

Crux, a Catholic news site

A new site from the Boston Globe includes news updates on clergy abuse and other Catholic issues.
Globe coverage of the scandal has been divided into nine categories:

More documents:

Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily

Day 1, page 1

On August 21, 2002, Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, was deposed by lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley at St. Jean's parish in Newton.

DAY 1 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
DAY 2 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3


     
                 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
        
                     COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
        
                                     )
    GREGORY FORD, et al.,            )
                                     )
                   Plaintiffs,       )            
                                     ) Superior Court 
    vs.                              ) Civil Action     
                                     ) No. 02-0626
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,         )
                                     )
                   Defendant.        )             
    ---------------------------------)
    PAUL W. BUSA,                    )            
                                     )
                   Plaintiff,        )            
                                     ) Civil Action
    vs.                              ) No. 02-0822
                                     )
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al., )
                                     )
                    Defendants.      )
    ---------------------------------) 
    ANTHONY DRISCOLL,                ) 
                                     ) 
                    Plaintiff,       )
                                     ) Civil Action         
    vs.                              ) No. 02-1737
                                     )                               
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et at., )
                                     )
                    Defendants.      )              
    ---------------------------------)
   
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP THOMAS DAILY

Brooklyn, New York

Wednesday, August 21, 2002

Reported by:
PENNY ECONOMAKOS
Job No. 138507

August 21, 2002
10:18 a.m.

Videotape deposition of BISHOP THOMAS DAILY, held at the Marriott Hotel, 333 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, before Penny Economakos, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York.

APPEARANCES:

GREENBERG TRAURIG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
      One International Place
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: RODERICK McLEISH, ESQ.

THE ROGERS LAW FIRM P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
      One Union Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: WILSON D. ROGERS, JR., ESQ.
      - and -
MARK C. ROGERS, ESQ.

HANITY & KING, P.C.
Attorney for Bishop Daily personally
      One Beacon Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: TIMOTHY P. O'NEILL, ESQ.

WINGATE, KEARNEY & CULLEN
Local counsel for Bishop Daily
      20 Court Street
      Brooklyn, New York 11201
BY: KEVIN M. KEARNEY, ESQ.

ALSO PRESENT:

GRIESINGER, TRIGHE & MAFFEI, LLP
      155 Federal Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: THOMAS F. MAFFEI, P.C.

PAUL JANSEN, Legal Video Specialist
Esquire Video Services

RODNEY FORD

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This is tape number one of the video deposition of Bishop Daily taken by Eric Roderick in the matter Gregory Ford, et al., plaintiffs, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, defendant, Superior Court Civil Action Number 02-0626. Paul W. Busa, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Civil Action Number 02-0288. Anthony Driscoll, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Civil Action Number 02-1737, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex.

This deposition is being held at the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel, 333 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on August the 21st, 2002, at approximately 10:18 a.m. My name is Paul Jansen from the firm of Esquire Video Services and I am the legal video specialist. The court reporter is Penny Economakos, in association with Esquire Reporting Services. Will counsel please introduce themselves.

MR. McLEISH: Yes. For the plaintiffs . it's actually Roderick McLeish, Junior.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, sorry.

MR. W. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr. appearing for the defendants.

THE WITNESS: Bishop Thomas Daily.

MR. O'NEILL: Timothy O'Neill appearing for Bishop Daily as personal counsel.

MR. C. ROGERS: Mark Rogers, appearing for all defendants.

MR. KEARNEY: Kevin Kearney, appearing for Bishop Daily as local counsel.

MR. MAFFEI: Thomas Maffei, here as an observer.

MR. McLEISH: Usual stipulations?

MR. W. ROGERS: Yes. I raise this every time. I should know the answer, but haven't we not agreed that this deposition will apply to all of the Paul Shanley cases?

MR. McLEISH: Yes.

...

MR. W. ROGERS: And we will reserve all . objections except as to form to the time of trial?

MR. McLEISH: And motions to strike.

MR. D. ROGERS: And reserve motions to strike to the time of trial?

MR. McLEISH: Correct. Thirty days to sign the deposition?

MR. W. ROGERS: From the conclusion of the deposition.

MR. McLEISH: Right.

MR. W. ROGERS: Yes.

MR. McLEISH: Waive the notary?

MR. W. ROGERS: Fine.

MR. McLEISH: All right. Ready for the oath?

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY , called as a witness, having been first duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified, as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:

Q: Good morning, Bishop Daily. A Good morning.

Q: My name is Roderick McLeish and I . represent Mr. Gregory Ford, who is seated to my right. It's Rodney Ford. I represent Gregory Ford, father -- whose father, Rodney Ford, is seated to my right, as well as his wife and various other individuals who allege that they were molested by Paul Shanley.

Thank you for come in for your deposition here this morning. Before we start, I would like to go over a few ground rules if we could. First of all, if at any point in time you would like to take a break, please indicate that to me and I will be happy to accommodate you.

A: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Q: Second, if at any point in time you want to go over anything that we have covered previously, change, modify your testimony in any way, you indicate that to me and I will give you the opportunity to do that. Okay?

A: Thank you.

Q: Final point is that sometimes there is an understandable tendency before I finish the question for you to anticipate what I am going to ask and answer the question before I finish asking. If you could try to avoid doing that. It's very common but . if you could try to avoid doing that, I would appreciate it.

A: I will do my best.

Q: Now, Bishop Daily, you are the bishop of Brooklyn Diocese?

A: I am.

Q: And for how long have you been the bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese?

A: Since April of 1990.

Q: And you were in Palm Beach before then; is that right?

A: I was.

Q: And you were bishop in Palm Beach?

A: I was.

Q: And for how long were you the bishop in Palm Beach?

A: From -- let's see. From 19 -- 1984 to 990.

Q: And before then you were auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: How long did you serve as auxiliary bishop at the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: From 1975 to 1984.

Q: And did you hold some position in the Archdiocese of Boston before you became auxiliary bishop?

A: Yes. I was chancellor from 1973 on.

Q: And any other positions?

A: And then I became the vicar general, I believe in 1977 or 8, one of those two.

Q: I thought you were named auxiliary bishop in 1975?

A: I was.

Q: But you also became --

A: Vicar general.

Q: Vicar general?

A: Yes.

Q: You were chancellor for some period of time; is that correct?

A: Yes. But I held both titles from '77 until, until I went to -- until '84.

Q: So you were vicar general, you were chancellor and you were auxiliary bishop, is that correct, from '77 to '84?

A: Correct.

Q: Now prior to 1973 did you hold any position in the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: In the Archdiocese of Boston I was secretary of assistant master of ceremonies, to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: How long did you hold that position?

A: January -- January of -- my dates are getting mixed up.

Q: That's okay.

A: It was January of 1971, okay, until 1973 when I became chancellor.

Q: And prior to the time that you were secretary to the late Cardinal Medeiros, what was your position in the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: I was assistant to the parish of Saint Anselm (phonetic) in Wollaston, Massachusetts.

Q: How long did you hold that position?

A: Immediately from '65, '66. But I was there before, too. When I was a Dean in 1952 I went there for '52 to 19 -- 19 -- until 1960. From 1960 I was in South America.

Q: You were in South America in 1960?

A: From '60 to '65, '66.

Q: Where in South America?

A: Peru. For the Saint James Society.

Q: And were you still under the ambit of the Archdiocese of Boston when you were in Peru?

A: Yes. Although it was kind of a lend lease type of thing. The society began in Boston and we lent that society and returned back to the diocese when we finished.

Q: So it's fair to state that from the time of your ordination up until 1952, up until the time that you that you left in 1984, you were assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: Yes.

Q: And, Bishop Daily, where did you attend seminary?

A: St. John's Seminary of Brighton.

Q: You have before you Deposition Exhibit number 1. Do you see that?

A: This is news release?

Q: Yes, it is.

MR. W. ROGERS: That's not the marked exhibit.

MR. McLEISH: Can we get the exhibit to the witness, please?

Q: Document marked news release, do you recognize --

A: It's the same as that.

Q: Right, they are all the same. I am just providing copies to you.

A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I am sorry.

Q: No problem. This was a news release that was issued by you, is it not, on March 19, 2002; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And these are your words that's in this exhibit; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: I would like you to turn to the second page and I want to read you a sentence. You are familiar with this document; is that correct?

A: Yes, yes, yes.

Q: I would like to turn to the second page and, if you could, bishop, I would like to read a sentence, ask you a question about it. It's in the first paragraph, second sentence from the bottom of the first paragraph. "Such activity on the part of any priest is totally unacceptable and even one instance is one too many." Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And you are referring in that, are you not, to sexual abuse by a priest; is that correct?

A: Yes. Yes, it does.

Q: And for how long have you believed that sexual abuse on the part of any priest is totally unacceptable and even one instance is one too many? How long have you believed that, Bishop Daily?

A: I believed it since the first time I came in contact with the sin itself.

Q: And you were ordained in 1952?

A: I was.

Q: And you knew that sexual -- when you were ordained in 1952, you knew that from time to time individuals were sexually abused, did you not?

A: I did, but very rarely from 1952 to -- to the time you are referring to.

Q: Right. My question is, would it be accurate to state that since your ordination in 1952 you believed that sexual abuse had the capacity to harm a young person, would that be a fair statement, since 1952?

A: To harm a person in what way do you mean?

Q: When someone is sexually abused --

A: Yes.

Q: -- did you believe that the sexual abuse had the capacity to harm that young person?

MR. W. ROGERS: You mean in 1952?

MR. McLEISH: In 1952, yes, I do. A 952?

Q: Yes.

A: Only through -- 1952 through the seminary training that we had.

Q: So you had some seminary training on this issue?

A: Yes.

Q: And part of the seminary training taught you that sexual abuse, regardless of who it's committed by, can cause harm to young people; is that correct?

A: Was it taught to me that way or did I -- I can't imagine. I don't remember that it was taught to me that way, that it would harm. Because I think that the aftermath, the abuse of the victims, was better known because of psychology and the development of social science during that time.

Q: Well you testified that there was some training in seminary that you had on the subject?

A: It was abnormal psychology and it was in with a lot of other things.

Q: Wasn't it just common sense that if a young person is sexually abused --

A: Well --

Q: Let me finish the question, if I could, please. Isn't it just common sense that if some person is sexually abused, young person is sexually abused by someone else in a position of authority that there would be harm from that? Didn't you know that in 1952?

A: Well if you are saying that I had an experience of sexual abuse or knowing that and did I experience the aftermath of that with individual cases, no.

Q: I am not asking --

A: Does that mean -- is that a general statement meaning -- does that mean everybody?

Q: No. I am talking in a more general sense. Did you, just as a matter of common sense and the training you received at seminary, bishop, in 1952 understand that when a young person is sexually abused by an adult there is the capability that that will cause harm to the young person?

A: You are asking a question and making a sweeping statement at the same time, it seems to me. But you don't say what the harm is. There is a psychological harm you are talking about?

Q: Let's try any harm.

A: Physical harm?

Q: Physical harm.

A: I think those possibilities certainly do exist.

Q: And in 195 -- we are all talking about 952 when you graduated seminary.

A: Okay, in 1952 --

Q: You have to wait until I finish the question. I am sorry.

A: I beg your pardon.

Q: In 1952 did you believe that sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult on a young person could cause physical harm on occasion to the young person?

A: If it was brought to my attention at that time, I would have to say yes. But we -- but let me just say this, then, that those cases or cases like that were very rare to me in my experience.

Q: Okay. What about --

A: The possibility of harm? I would say very much so.

Q: What about in 1952, wasn't it just common sense that if a young person was molested, sexually abused, that that would also have the capacity to cause psychological injury to that young person? Did you know that?

A: Well let me just --

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of that question.

Q: Go ahead.

A: Well let me just say that sexual abuse certainly has the potential of lasting effects with the victim. I would think that would be possible. Whether -- and I think it would happen in certain degrees. Some would be bothered more than others perhaps. But they would all be classified as victims and that potential of being affected over a long period of time certainly could exist.

Q: Did you understand that in 1952, bishop?

A: Not necessarily.

Q: Did you know that sexual assaults on children were crimes when you graduated from seminary in 1952?

A: In civil law?

Q: Yes, in civil law.

A: And even in the canon law they would be very seriously taken under consideration. But the civil law, I was not familiar with the details of the civil law, but I would have to assume that at that time, at that time, that it was serious enough to be considered by the civil law and the civil law covered those things.

Q: As civil law as a crime, this is your understanding in 1952?

A: Yeah.

Q: And then certainly sexual molestation by a priest would be treated as a serious matter in 1952 by cannon law; is that not correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now in the next paragraph you will see, bishop, you state, "I recognize the life long impact such abuse may have on a young person." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And those are your words in 2002. I would like to again go back to 1952 when you graduated from seminary. Did you believe in 1952 that sexual abuse could have a life long impact on a young person?

A: That thought didn't occur to me in 1952. I have no recollection of that thought actually occurring to me at that time. If that's what you are saying, from the point of view of 1952.

Q: Right.

A: And as a young priest coming into the diocese and all, the lasting effect? If someone asked me at that time, I would say certainly the possibility would have to be there but, you know, definitely at that time, I would say no.

Q: You did not know?

A: I didn't read that in the books. That is as I recall.

Q: Now you became auxiliary bishop, I think you testified, in 1973; is that correct?

A: 1973 I became auxiliary bishop. That's -- no. Check that.75.

Q: '75?

A: Yeah.

Q: When you became auxiliary bishop, you were in the third or the fourth largest diocese in the United States; is that correct?

A: The third or the fourth --

Q: Third or the fourth largest Catholic diocese.

A: Well, you could say that. I don't recall what it was, but it was up in those numbers, yes.

Q: And you were in a position of supervision when you became auxiliary bishop; is that correct?

A: Not necessarily, no.

Q: Well you were a bishop; is that right?

A: That's right.

Q: And you would speak regularly with then Cardinal Medeiros; is that correct?

A: Yes, who was, in fact, the supervisor.

Q: The ultimate supervisor; is that correct?

A: That's true.

Q: Were you the second in command in terms of the organizational structure of the church?

A: Because of what? Because of being --

Q: Because you were auxiliary bishop in 1975.

A: At that time vicar general.

Q: Vicar general?

A: Was more of an honorary type of a position. And that the vicar general would substitute for the cardinal or the ordinary at times he would designate. That might well be a funeral or a civic celebration or some assignment that he might give. But it was more honorary than anything else, all except for those occasions.

Q: What were your responsibilities as auxiliary bishop in 1975? A 975 I continued as chancellor and I continued -- and then in 1977 I got the title of vicar general. But I was chancellor.

Q: What were your responsibilities in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1975 in any of the various -- in all the various position that you held? What were your responsibilities, if you could just tell us?

A: Well the chancellor basically was in charge of the records. You know, basically in that kind of thing. And archives. And he had that ultimate responsibility. Even though that position evolved later on to archivist and other subsidiary functions. What, in fact, the chancellor at that time was, was -- was an administrator.

Q: Right.

A: And ultimately he reported to the ordinary on administration in the Diocese. That's really it.

Q: And when you say the ordinary, you are referring to the cardinal; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: We can use those terms interchangeably, that's fine. So you were the administrator and you would report to Cardinal Medeiros; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And that went on from 1975 up until the time that you left for Palm Beach in 1984?

A: No. It began in 1973.

Q: 1973?

A: Until I left -- until he died.

Q: Until he died?

A: Which was in 1983.

Q: And then you stayed on as auxiliary bishop when Archbishop Law arrived in Boston; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you, in fact, were close advisor to Archbishop Law until you left for Palm Beach; is that not correct?

A: Not necessarily, no.

Q: How much interaction did you have with Cardinal --

A: Not that much.

Q: Hold on a second. How much interaction did you have with Cardinal Law when Cardinal Law arrived in Massachusetts in March of 1984 as archbishop at the time you left?

A: Let me just say -- oh, 1984?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: I had some, very little.

Q: Very little contact?

A: Let's put it this way. I'd rather put it this way. Some. Because we did have some contact.

Q: Were you his closest advisor when he --

A: Yes, at that time. I was -- I had that title. It came with the position.

Q: But you had very little contact as you can best recall?

A: Well I just said -- let's put it this way. The contact was not that extensive.

Q: Would you speak --

A: Not in comparison -- I am sorry.

Q: Sure.

A: Not in comparison with previously in the previous administration.

Q: Well would you speak to him about priests?

A: I think -- you are asking did I initiate the conversation or would he be asking me?

Q: Either one. Did you ever talk with Cardinal Law about the subject of priests between the time that Cardinal Law arrived in Boston and the time that you left for Palm Beach?

A: I would have to say off -- just off the record and --

Q: No, we are on the record.

A: -- and generally speaking, I was open to that kind of conversation and presumably had those kinds of conversations about some priests.

Q: Did you ever have discussions with Cardinal Law before you left for Palm Beach, discussions about particular problems involving priests?

A: Not extensively. And even -- and I can't remember when or how.

Q: Did Cardinal Law ever ask you, Bishop Daily, if you could provide him with reports about any problems that particular priests were having?

A: I do not remember him asking.

Q: Do you remember a priest by the name of Paul Shanley?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Would it be accurate to state that you had a number of contacts with Paul -- about Paul Shanley and with Paul Shanley between the time that you became auxiliary bishop in 1975 --

A: Five.

Q: -- and the time that you left in 1984?

A: That's a difficult one. I just have to refer -- I would say let's refer to the documentation on the subject.

Q: Well --

A: If at that time I had contact with Father Shanley, there would have been documentation about those contacts. I can't -- on a regular basis, no. I am sure I had contact with him and I am sure the documentation would show whatever it shows.

Q: It does. We are going to go through documentation. I would just like if you could describe generally your level of contact with Paul Shanley from 19 -- let's take it from 1973 up until the time you left for Palm Beach.

A: Only -- okay.

MR. W. ROGERS: What's the question?

Q: The question is could you please describe the frequency in a general way of your contact with Paul Shanley or issues about Paul Shanley from 1973 until the time you left?

A: With the Cardinal Medeiros and --

Q: Cardinal Law.

A: Cardinal Law. More with Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: Right.

A: Very little with Cardinal Law. That's the way I describe it.

Q: Well what do you remember about your contacts with Cardinal Law about Paul Shanley?

A: Cardinal Law? Frankly I can't recall specifically.

Q: Well Cardinal Law comes in as archbishop at the beginning of 1984 -- is that correct?

A: That's right.

Q: That's correct?

A: He came I think in March, was it?

Q: March.

A: Yeah.

Q: You leave for Palm Beach later on in the year; is that correct?

A: I leave for Palm Beach -- I was appointed in June. I left the following October.

Q: You left in October of 1984?

A: That's right.

Q: And you were in Boston up until October of 984; is that correct?

A: I think I went the end of September.

Q: End of September?

A: I think the record might show that I left probably the last week of September. Third or fourth week of September.

Q: Now from that period from March until September of 1984, you were Cardinal Law's closest advisor in Boston; is that correct?

A: I would not say so.

Q: Well who was? I thought you did say that.

A: No. I think what happened was, if you let me explain it --

Q: Absolutely. Sure.

A: When cardinal came, the cardinal immediately wanted to establish what came to be a cabinet.

Q: Right.

A: A level of administration that had been provided for by, it seems to me, the canon law, the revision of the canon law in 1983, which would be an advisory board, which is an advisory board, to the cardinal on various major postulates or works in the archdiocese which would include things like education.

Q: Personnel?

A: Yes, personnel. Or other aspects of the -- you know, schools.

Q: Religious education?

A: Precisely.

Q: Now in that reorganization, would it be accurate to state that you were, after Cardinal Law, the number two administrator until you left for Palm Beach?

A: No. In fact or in title?

Q: Let's start in fact.

A: In fact, no. In title, yes.

Q: So was -- who was the number two person if it was not you? Even though you had the title, who was the number two person?

A: The organization that was being formed as a cabinet was chaired by Bishop Banks who, in fact, inherited the title the day I left. So but in the meantime the arc of the cardinal was occupied very much with the candidates or people that he was inviting to be part of this, this cabinet, which had obviously meant that he had to interview them and share his idea of what this cabinet should do and the various aspects.

Q: Had you known Cardinal Law when he was a bishop of Springfield, Cape Giradeau?

A: I met him once.

Q: And was that at a bishop's conference?

A: No. It was an invitation. He came to the archdiocese for a presentation to Lutheran conference or a reunion or whatever.

Q: Right.

A: Conference, let's put it that way. An actual conference. Made a presentation as the chairman or the office head, if you will, of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the area of the Cubanism (phonetic).

Q: Would it be accurate to state, then, Bishop Daily, that it was really Bishop Banks who was the closest advisor to Cardinal Law, as you perceived it, when Cardinal Law arrived in Boston as archbishop --

A: It was my --

Q: Let me finish. In March of '84.

A: It was my perception that that was and was to be the development in that period as he was organizing this cabinet.

Q: But you would certainly have contact with Cardinal Law from time to time?

A: Oh, sure.

Q: Including on personnel matters; is that correct?

A: Let's put it this way. I could have. Did I specifically? Again I'd have to refer to the documentation but, yes. Not exclusively, but I could have.

Q: Now Cardinal Law, when he came to Boston, he did not know a great number of the bishops, priests or other individuals working for the archdiocese; is that a fair statement?

A: I think that's a fair statement.

Q: But he immediately, when he started as archbishop, he was called upon from time to time to make appointments of individuals as pastors or other positions; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: At the time, Bishop Daily, when Cardinal Law arrived, as I understand it, there were approximately 400 parishes and more than 200 schools that fell within the ambit of the archdiocese; is that correct?

A: Correct. Correct.

Q: And there were actually, I think, a couple of camps, as well; is that correct?

A: Camps? You mean --

Q: Archdiocesan camps. The Camp in Hope, do you know about that camp?

A: Well that's a charity, Catholic Charities.

Q: Catholic Charities?

A: That's right. I think there was another one. Was there another one?

Q: I think there was another one. I could be wrong. In any event, you would agree with me, would you not, that in 1984 when you were auxiliary bishop and Cardinal Law arrives in Boston, there are tens of thousands of children that are served in archdiocesan sponsored programs, whether CCD classes or schools; is that correct?

A: I would have to say that, yeah.

Q: And was there any written policy that you were aware of at the time that was designed to protect children from sexual abuse or other forms of harm? Any written policy.

A: Specifically sexual abuse you are asking?

Q: Let's start with sexual abuse.

A: That's what you are asking?

Q: That's what I am asking.

A: I was not aware. I was not aware it, written policy. We had no written policy as such for sexual abuse that I am aware of, just the general law of the church.

Q: Which is, as I understand it, that sexual abuse by priests is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?

A: Well I think that's -- would you have to ask? I would think so, yeah.

Q: I have to ask.

A: I would have to say so. For the record.

Q: But let me ask you this. In view of the fact that there were tens of thousands of children that were being served by archdiocesan sponsored programs, it's accurate to state that there was no written policy specifically on the subject of protecting those young people from sexual abuse by priests or other individuals associated with the archdiocese; is that correct?

A: Let me just say this, that there were two, there are two areas of laws giving directions for the whole diocese and for the universal church. For the universal church, the diocese obviously came into the canon law of the church. And it did include -- it did include -- canon law does, and I am not a canonist, does include the crimes, you know, church crimes. It would be, for example, the whole area of penance, the sacrament of penance. You know, and divulging what went on in a confessional, that kind of thin. That would be a crime, considered a crime, in canon law. There is also another body of instructions and rules, ordinances there are called, namely the ordinances that came forth from the sittered (phonetic), the archdiocesan sittered, which was a meeting that takes place to specify universal law of the church and its application to the local diocese. And that took place in the spring of 1952. In that body of instructions, the area of criminality, I don't remember specifically that area or what it did say about, if it did, about sexual crime.

Q: I am not referring to penance and I am not referring to canon law. What I am referring to is -- and let me be specific about this.

A: Uh-huh.

Q: If it came to the attention of the archdiocese that one of its priests or one of its workers was sexually abusing one of these tens of thousands of young people served in the programs, was there a written protocol of what would have to be done in 1984? Do you understand my question?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Was there one?

A: Only to add, in comparison to what exists now?

Q: No, I am just talking -- we are going to come up to what exists now. I am just talking about in 1984. Say that there is a young, young man who was molested, claims he was molested in an archdiocesan sponsored program. Was there a written program of what should happen under those circumstances?

A: No, I was not aware of that.

Q: And you were actually, as auxiliary bishop under Cardinal Medeiros, one of your responsibilities was personnel; is that correct?

A: No.

Q: Personnel was not as the number two man?

A: Only -- no. Only when, only when the cardinal would assign me to a specific case. But, no, I was not responsible for personnel as such.

Q: All right. Okay, so -- all right. Now when Cardinal Law came in and before you left, since there was no written policy on what would happen when a priest was alleged to have molested a young person, was there any unwritten practice of what would occur that you were aware of?

A: At that time?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: Only by assignment by his eminence to me, if that occurred.

Q: What was the policy as you understood it?

A: The policy was for me to investigate and to bring it to his attention.

Q: And then his eminence would take action; is that correct?

A: That was my understanding.

Q: Do you remember a priest by the name of Eugene O'Sullivan?

A: Only by name and from what I've read -- what I read in, you know, documentation. I did not know Eugene O'Sullivan. I have no recollection of Eugene O'Sullivan.

Q: You know that at some point in 1984 he pled guilty to rape of a child. He was a priest; is that correct?

A: I don't recall that.

Q: You were not involved in that in any way?

A: I don't recall being involved. I would refer to that there is documentation that exists to that effect. That's something else. But I'm not --

Q: Can you tell me, Bishop Daily, as the number two man up until 1984 when Cardinal Law arrives in the Archdiocese of Boston what would, as a practical matter, occur to a priest if that priest had molested a child?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.

Q: As you recall.

MR. D. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.

A: As I recall? I don't recall. I don't recall.

Q: Would the priest be transferred?

A: Let me just say it's possible. But I don't recall. I do not recall. It was not automatic. But I would think. Let me just say that. You are asking me to question now and I am thinking, you know, by today's standards and somewhat --

Q: Sure.

A: But at that time -- but you are emphasizing 1984.

Q: I am.

A: Is there a possibility that -- are you saying is there a possibility he might be transferred?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes, there is a possibility he might have been transferred. But not that simply. I would assume that there would have to be some, some circumstances that would be surrounding that transfer that would, you know, mitigate the possibility of him doing it again.

Q: And what would those circumstances as of 984 be that you are aware of in any case? What circumstances would there be?

A: Might have been -- I am not aware of specifics now. I can't recall specific situations. But you are asking the question. And if you are asking the question what might have happened, it might have been circumstances that would diminish the possibility of him becoming involved or less likely to become involved in that activity in the future.

Q: So even if the priest was transferred after there were credible allegations that he molested a child, if he was transferred to another parish, was the policy in 1984 to alert the parishioners at the new parish that they were receiving a priest who had credible allegations of molestation against him?

A: No, I know of no policy of that.

Q: Why would it be -- why would the parents of these children who would be attending these CCD classes and religious classes not get the information about the priest that they were receiving so that they could make their own decisions about whether or not they wish to attend the parish?

MR. W. ROGERS: I object. You are asking a hypothetical question, am I right?

MR. McLEISH: I think it's a -- he has described what the policy was. It was not automatic.

A: But, no --

Q: Do you understand my question?

A: I think the direction would have been given to the pastor and the priest -- the pastor to whom the individual was assigned.

Q: I am not asking about the pastor. I am asking --

A: Well he is in charge.

Q: I understand the pastor is in charge. I am asking whether there was any circumstances that you were aware of when a priest had molested a child and it was credible and the priest was transferred, whether there were any situations that you were aware of where the parents of the children at the new church were notified that the priest had admitted to molesting a child.

MR. W. ROGERS: In 1984?

MR. McLEISH: In 1984.

MR. O'NEILL: You are asking about a specific case or --

MR. McLEISH: Any case.

MR. O'NEILL: Or does he have a memory of a specific case?

MR. McLEISH: Any case.

MR. W. ROGERS: A memory of any case.

MR. McLEISH: Any case where that occurred.

MR. W. ROGERS: Okay.

Q: Was there any practice, unwritten practice, that when a priest prior to 1984 in the Archdiocese of Boston had molested a child or where there were credible allegations to that effect, that the police would be notified?

A: No. And, as a matter of fact, I was kind of under the misapprehension that we did not have to notify the police. Let's put it this way. It was not automatic that we had to notify the police.

Q: Were you aware that there were some restriction that prevented you from notifying the police?

A: No. No.

Q: But the police were not notified?

A: That's right. We were to take care of it ourselves. As a matter of fact, we were told that in some instances, by the police themselves, that they treated us that way. If it came back to us, we were presumably to take care of it.

Q: Let's just take a situation of rape. When a priest had --

A: Oh, my God.

Q: When a priest had allegedly raped a child, was there a policy of notifying -- I am talking about rape now. Not fondling, rape.

A: Right, yeah.

Q: Was there a policy within the archdiocese prior to 1984 that the police would be notified?

MR. W. ROGERS: Written policy or --

MR. McLEISH: Written, unwritten, any kind of policy.

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.

Q: You can answer.

A: I was not aware, but I would assume there would have to be something. That's very serious.

Q: But you can't identify any unwritten or written policies as you sit here today?

A: No.

Q: Now, Bishop Daily, you do as you sit here today -- and you are right, there are some documents. But you do have some recollection of Paul Shanley as you sit here today, do you not?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And Paul Shanley was a priest that generally came to your attention on a variety of issues during the time that you were auxiliary bishop; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And was there any priest that came to your attention -- as you sit here right now, was there any priest that came to your attention more as auxiliary bishop than Paul Shanley, you can recall right now?

A: That's -- in what time frame are you talking about? Q 973 to 1984. Any other priest that you had to deal with more than Paul Shanley. I am talking about priest. I am not talking about -- I am not talking about a bishop. I am talking about a priest. Do you understand what I am talking about?

A: No, I am not aware of anybody.

Q: So would it be fair to say that Paul Shanley was someone that you had -- let me ask you another question. And I didn't really put it to you as accurately as I wanted to previously. When you were working in the archdiocese from 1973 to 1984, is it accurate to state that there were a number of complaints that were made about Paul Shanley from various individuals? Would that be accurate to state?

A: I would refer to the documentation. The number -- what are you referring --

Q: I am not referring to any number.

A: Am I aware of complaints?

Q: Yes.

A: I am now, more now than then, I think, as I recall only because of the documentation. At that time the complaints against Paul Shanley, I'm not -- no.

Q: You weren't aware of any complaints?

A: No, not necessarily. And I think this, that if there was a complaint centered around his activity with dignity and day-to-day, the kids, but more with dignity and homosexuality.

Q: Okay. There were a number of complaints that you can recall about his views on homosexuality; is that correct?

A: I'd have to say yes.

Q: And at that time homosexuality, this is not me speaking, but as I understand it between 1973 and 1984 and, in fact, up until the present, homosexuality was considered to be a sin; is that correct?

A: No. Homosexual activity is a sin.

Q: Homosexual activity was a sin?

A: Homosexuality is a condition.

Q: Right.

A: So that's not a sin.

Q: That's not a sin, but homosexual activity was considered to be a sin; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And there were a number of complaints, just as you are sitting here today, that you can recall about people complaining that Paul Shanley had crossed the line in expressing his views that homosexual activity was not a sin; is that correct?

A: Crossed the line? At that time?

Q: Yes.

A: I didn't keep a log on it but, yes, I would assume that I would have to be aware because I was opposed to the whole question of his involvement in his ministry.

Q: You were opposed to it and there were, in fact, a number of meetings that you had with Paul Shanley on the subject of his views departing from established church doctrine; is that not correct, Bishop Daily?

A: I'd have to say yes. A number of meetings? How many, that's another question.

Q: Well can you think of any priest of the Archdiocese of Boston in the period when you were auxiliary bishop that had made as many alleged statements that were inconsistent with church doctrine than Paul Shanley?

A: On?

Q: On any issue.

A: No, I wouldn't say that. I think his statements centered around homosexuality.

Q: But for the most part --

A: Or, you know -- I am sorry.

Q: For the most part, Bishop Daily, you were not dealing, when you were auxiliary bishop in Boston, with priests who consistently made statements that were inconsistent with church doctrine? That wasn't something you were typically dealing with, was it?

A: Not directly.

Q: All right. But with Paul Shanley you were dealing with it regularly throughout your tenure as auxiliary bishop, correct?

A: Not exclusively. And not extensively.

Q: Not extensively?

A: No.

Q: Well we are going to look at some records. But you were dealing with it from time to time?

A: Yeah.

Q: And can you think of any other priest in the Archdiocese of Boston that was as brazen about stating things that were contrary to church doctrine than Paul Shanley?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.

MR. O'NEILL: Objection.

Q: Do you understand the question, Bishop Daily?

A: I can't think of any.

Q: You can't think of anyone? So Paul Shanley, would it be fair to state, in your mind stands out as a brazen priest; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

Q: Would you use those words?

A: I wouldn't say -- I don't know about brazen, but he stands out.

Q: He stands out?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And was he defiant?

A: He was not -- I didn't read him as a defiant person, but he was -- he was defiant in the sense that he was very public about his presentations.

Q: And there were public disputes from time to time, were there not?

A: With him?

Q: Yes.

A: Well you must know better than I do. But I can't recall public? What are the nature of public disputes?

Q: Well when there was an article in the newspaper, for example, about him making some statement and it would be brought to your attention and the statement was contrary to the teaching of the church.

A: Yes.

Q: That would happen from time to time, would it not?

A: It would happen in the sense that we would get a letter. And you have the documentation, I guess.

Q: You would get a letter and you would deal with it yourself?

A: That's right. Immediately. Immediately.

Q: You would deal with it immediately?

A: Yeah.

Q: And then it would happen again?

A: Not because of -- not because of the time do I say immediately. Immediately because the letter had to be -- what was written complaining had to be responded to and I did respond to it. The information was always given to his eminence, the cardinal, who directed, who directed the association with the cardinal -- with Father Shanley.

Q: So when there were complaints about Paul Shanley, it was always presented to the cardinal; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now when Cardinal Law came in, did he establish a policy that you were aware of whereby there were complaints, if there were complaints about priests, he would want to know about it?

A: No, I just assumed so.

Q: You assumed that he would want to know about it?

A: I assume that he would want to know.

Q: So you are not aware of any -- I understand you weren't there for a long time period, but when you were in there when Archbishop Law was there, would it be fair to state that you assumed if there was problems with a priest, complaints about a priest, that the cardinal would end up knowing about the issue; is that a fair statement?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.

Q: You do you understand my question?

A: I understand the question. I would -- let's put it this way. I would hope so. And I would think so.

Q: Why would you hope so and why would you think so?

A: I would hope so because he is the ordinary, the top man.

Q: Right.

A: Had the responsibility, all of it. Not exclusively. We shared it. But he had the ultimate responsibility. He was the one as the bishop, as I do now, give direction to other people.

Q: Right.

A: To support the policy and to fulfill the law of the church.

Q: Right.

A: And his ministry.

Q: So you would hope that if there were problems or allegations about a priest, that it would come to the attention of Cardinal Law; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And as it had with Cardinal Medeiros?

A: Yes. But keep in mind, getting back to your earlier questions --

Q: Right.

A: If I may say so.

Q: Sure.

A: That my contacts with Cardinal Medeiros were much more frequent than they were with Cardinal Law in that period.

Q: Right.

A: Because -- and I just think it start with the time that I was in Boston, as a matter of fact. It was before I left for Florida.

Q: But you said that you were number two on the organizational chart but you were not number two in terms of the person who was the closest advisor to the cardinal; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: Cardinal Law.

MR. McLEISH: Cardinal Law.

A: I would say so.

Q: What I said is correct?

A: I think that's correct. The most recent statement, yes.

Q: Could you turn to Exhibit number 1 on the fourth page, please, bishop?

A: Page four?

Q: Yes, second paragraph. It starts with the case of a former priest of the Archdiocese of Boston accused of multiple acts of pedophilia has stirred the conscious of the public throughout the country.

A: Okay.

Q: Do you see that paragraph?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: You are referring to Father John Geoghan; is that correct?

A: Yes. What paragraph is this again?

Q: It's the first full paragraph.

A: Oh, okay, okay.

Q: If you take a moment to read that, if you'd like. It says, does it not, "Because of my responsibilities in that archdiocese in the early 980s I was named a defendant in a number of civil cases recently settled." Do you see that, recently settled?

A: I see that.

Q: And so as of March 19, 19 -- 2002, you believed that the so-called Father Geoghan cases had been settled; is that correct?

A: Not completely. I just assumed that that settlement was in process. And it was a good sign, from my point of view. And that's why it was said here.

Q: Well you said the case is settled.

A: Yes, I did, yes.

Q: Okay. You certainly weren't going to issue a statement to the people of the Diocese of Brooklyn that was misleading in any way, were you?

A: No. I don't think that the statement actually pertains particularly to the Diocese of Brooklyn.

Q: No, it doesn't.

A: It's just, it's part of the general, it's part of the general theme of the letter itself.

Q: Well this is entitled, Exhibit 1, Pastoral Statement to the People of God and the Diocese of Brooklyn.

A: Correct.

Q: Do you see that on page one?

A: Yes.

Q: So you were going to give them, in this statement that you wrote, you were going to make sure that everything you told them was accurate and correct; is that correct?

A: I would certainly hope so.

Q: And then you go on to say, "In that situation I acted in good conscience with the knowledge gained from consultations but in hindsight I profoundly regret certain decisions." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And then you go on to -- so would it be accurate to state in the case of Father Shanley that you also regret some of the decisions that you made in the case of Father Shanley?

A: Not necessarily, no.

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form. Go ahead.

Q: Do you regret any?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form. I am not sure there is testimony there has been any decisions made. So I object to the form of that.

Q: Well you received complaints about Father Shanley consistently, is that correct, Bishop Daily?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of that question.

Q: Go ahead. Answer the question.

A: No, I think I had trouble with the word consistently.

Q: Well let me ask you a question.

A: Like every day or every other day or every week?

Q: We are going to go through a few of them.

A: All right.

Q: But with respect to the way that you handled any of those complaints, do you have any regrets as you sit here today?

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.

Q: Go ahead.

A: Let me just say this. I was in two different positions. Essentially different. When in Brooklyn I am the ordinary, I am the boss.

Q: Right.

A: And that's -- and because I am the boss, the regret concerns perhaps more aggressive investigation, more aggressive participation in that whole area of the -- so that's Brooklyn -- excuse me, that's Boston. In Brooklyn there is a different story all together. But in Boston, thinking back, yes, I think --

Q: And Paul Shanley.

A: I've said this. But no, no. I mean in Brooklyn. In Boston, excuse me.

Q: Yeah.

A: I am thinking specifically.

Q: I am talking about Paul Shanley.

A: All right, no. This here refers to --

Q: I know.

A: To John Geoghan.

Q: I am asking a separate question now, bishop. I am asking you whether thinking back on it, having dealt with complaints about Paul Shanley, whether you regret any decisions that you made with respect to the investigation of those complaints.

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the question. I don't think there has been any testimony that there was an investigation into those complaints. And it's not a fair question so I object to the form.

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

Q: When you got complaints, they had to be investigated, bishop, right?

A: They had to be investigated in terms of direction from the ordinary. In other words, I -- that's the archbishop. The difference in Brooklyn I, you know, I was the one in charge. Am in charge. This had to do with my being assistant to the archbishop, to whom I had an open relationship and to whom I referred materials.

Q: And he would refer them back to you, would he not?

A: If he gave me direction.

Q: Well when you would bring something to his attention, it would be the ordinary course if it had to be investigated, he wouldn't do the investigation, he would ask you to be in charge of the investigation; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. Are we talking Cardinal Medeiros?

MR. McLEISH: Cardinal Medeiros.

A: Cardinal Medeiros?

Q: Yes.

A: Did he ask me to do some investigations specifically about --

Q: Yes.

A: No.

Q: Never did?

A: No. Well, never? I mean no, I can't recall. He did his own investigation.

Q: Well he has many responsibilities as cardinal?

A: He does but this is a serious matter, as you indicated.

Q: Bishop Daily, did you understand that in -- from 1977 to 1984 that sexual relations between adults and children was contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

A: Did I realize it?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: Well I think so, yes. I mean not think so. I know so. Sure, of course.

Q: So if a complaint had been brought to you that a pastor was openly espousing views on the propriety of sexual relations between children and adults, would that be something that you would take seriously?

MR. W. ROGERS: Well object to the form. I don't think there is anything before any of us that a pastor was openly espousing that.

Q: Well go ahead. If that had occurred.

A: Well --

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

A: You are giving me a hypothetical situation.

MR. W. ROGERS: Hypothetical situation.

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

Q: Go Ahead. If that had come to your attention that someone was espousing views on the propriety of sex between children and adults, would you have taken that seriously?

MR. W. ROGERS: That's a different question. I object to the form but go ahead.

Q: Go ahead. You can answer that question.

A: Would I have taken it seriously? Yes, I would.

Q: Why?

A: Because we had indicated it's a very serious sin and has social effects.

Q: Social effects on whom?

A: Well sin, sin by the very nature has social effects.

Q: Well --

A: This is a serious sin. And it has to do with people, young people especially that, you know, that are innocent and that kind of thing and all the other elements and the circumstances that surround that kind of a situation. So if you ask the question is it serious, would I consider it serious, yes, I do. I consider it very serious.

MR. W. ROGERS: It's ten past 11:00. Can I suggest a five-minute break?

MR. McLEISH: Sure. Well I think we didn't start until 20 after, but that's fine. I don't care. Whenever you want to take a break.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 11:07 a.m.

(Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:18 a.m. BY

MR. McLEISH:

Q: All right, bishop, we have quite a stack of documents here but we are not going to be spending an enormous amount of the time on most of them because they are of a similar nature. So I don't want you to think that we are going to be here for five days.

A: I've got two now.

Q: Okay, you've got two of them, that's right. The first document, Exhibit number 2, do you have that in front of you? It's a memo from Father Helmick. He was Cardinal Medeiros' personal secretary.

A: Yes.

Q: To you?

A: Yes.

Q: And this is -- attached to this memorandum is a copy of a memorandum which I gave the cardinal about Father Paul Shanley's quotation to Mr. Charles Lorego about his eminence; do you see that?

A: I see that, yes.

Q: Exhibit number 3, do you have that in front of?

A: I do.

Q: If you take a look at that. And that was a call -- references a call on May 19th, the same date as Exhibit number 2, from Mr. Charles Lorego of the Boston Phoenix. Mr. Lorego advises me that Father Paul Shanley told him that the cardinal has no objection to ceremonies of commitment or gay unions as long as the rights are not called marriages. Is that -- do you see what that says?

A: I do.

Q: Okay. And that memorandum was produced by the archdiocese with Exhibit number 2 in -- actually it was the next document produced. It was production two of documents 309 and 310. So would it be accurate to state that in 1973 you had received from Father Helmick a memorandum where at least a reporter from the Boston Phoenix was making, advising the archdiocese that Paul Shanley had been telling the reporter that the cardinal had no objection to ceremonies of commitment or gay unions as long as rights are not called marriages? You would have known about that in 1973; is that correct?

A: Not necessarily, no.

Q: Well did you read the memorandum? Were you in the habit of reading memorandum sent to you from Father Helmick?

A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. I was looking at the cardinal. Father Helmick --

Q: You see it's attached?

A: I do, yes.

Q: Okay, so and --

A: They were together.

Q: They were together, right. We just marked them separately. Certainly in 1973 you were aware that Paul Shanley was making statement about ceremonies of commitment or gay unions that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?

A: Let me just say this. I was aware of this. I was on the job of April of 1973 so I was on -- I was on a -- I had a -- what's this, May 19th? I was on the job like a month. So let me say this. I was aware of this. I had to be.

Q: My question was what Mr. Lorego reports Paul Shanley is saying about gay unions and the cardinal's position is, in fact, inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?

A: Absolutely. I think Father Helmick says it very nicely.

Q: He does. And do you know whether Paul Shanley was brought in to be asked about whether he had made such a statement to the reporter of the Boston Phoenix?

A: I do not know that.

Q: Now, Bishop Daily, what would happen in the '73 to '84 period if a priest was making statements that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? What was the general policy?

A: Publicly, you mean? Public statements?

Q: Public statements.

A: Or just statements? Sometimes Fathers get into arguments and that kind of thing, but public statements?

Q: Public statements, statements at homily, statements in the church. What would happen?

A: Public statements. He might well get called in at the time and be questioned about it.

Q: Okay. What if it kept happening?

A: It kept happening?

Q: Yes, what was the policy then?

A: I am quite sure it would reach the cardinal.

Q: And then what would happen?

A: The cardinal would talk to him and make some decisions about it.

Q: But there were remedies available, were there not, if the priest was acting in an insubordinate fashion? There were remedies?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

Q: Go ahead. You can answer.

A: There are remedies in the law, sure. If the cardinal felt that it was serious enough to suspend the man, which means that he would not have faculties to preach or faculties to administer of sacraments of the church, that would be a suspension. That's a serious matter.

Q: He could also be assigned to a place where he would have no contact with the public; is that correct? Like Our Lady --

A: Give me an example.

Q: Well you know Our Ladies in Milton? Are you familiar with that facility?

A: Our Ladies in Milton?

Q: Yes.

A: Tell me about it.


DAY 1 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
DAY 2 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy