Cardinal Law Deposition, June 5, 2002, Part 1
Email
Print
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX GREGORY FORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Defendant. Superior Court
Civil Action
No. 02-0626
---------------------------------
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants. Civil Action
No. 02-0822
-------------------------------------
ANTHONY DRISCOLL,
Plaintiff, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1737 THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Kathleen M. Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, commencing at 10:06 a.m. K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-0815 APPEARANCES:
Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, Robert Sherman, Attorney, David G. Thomas, Attorney, Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney, and Gina Dines Holness, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney
One Storey Terrace
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson D. Rogers, III, Attorney, and Mark C. Rogers, Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for the Defendants
Todd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally ALSO PRESENT:
Colleen Surrette
Diane Nealon
Rodney Ford
Paula Ford
Anthony Driscoll
Andrew Magni
Father John Connolly
Father Christopher Coyne
Sandy Grossman
George Libbares
Wayne Martin
P R O C E E D I N G S (Law Exhibit No. 1, Complaint and Jury Demand, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 2, Answer of the Defendant Bernard Cardinal Law to Plaintiffs' Complaint, marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Labbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Today is June 5, 2002, and the time is 10:06 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Gregory Ford, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, and Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Cardinal -- versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Defendants, and Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard Law, et al., Defendants, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex. This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathleen Silva with K. L. Good and Associates of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts 02209. Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath. MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the plaintiffs. MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the plaintiffs. MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman for the plaintiffs. MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the plaintiffs. MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on behalf of all defendants, including His Eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law. MR. ROGERS III: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of Cardinal Bernard Law and all the defendants. MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wilson Rogers, Jr., on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Law, and all the defendants. MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of the Cardinal personally. MR. MacLEISH: Before you do the oath, we have some stipulations for the record. As I understand it, we are stipulating that all objections except as to form and motions to strike are reserved in this case until the time of trial. Mr. Todd, you also want to make another stipulation? MR. TODD: That prior stipulation will apply to the audio-visual deposition as well. MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. Mr. Rogers, you also wanted to make a continuing objection on First Amendment grounds; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Yes. We would interpose an objection as to any questions going to the internal workings of the Church, and to obviate the need of raising it on an ongoing basis, I'd like to agree we have a continuing objection to this line of inquiry. MR. MacLEISH: We have such an agreement. Could you swear the witness in. MR. TODD: And the objection of one party will stand for all parties, correct? MR. MacLEISH: That's acceptable. MR. ROGERS: Did we -- is it clear on the record that this deposition applies in four cases? MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure when we did -- MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. That's my prior agreement with your son. It also applies to the case of Andrew Magni as well. Are we ready to swear the witness in? BERNARD F. LAW was sworn on oath by the reporter. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH Q: Good morning, Your Eminence. A: Good morning. My name is Eric MacLeish and I'm counsel for the plaintiffs in these actions. To my right is Paula Ford, who is also a plaintiff. To my left is David Thomas, Robert Sherman, Mr. Rodney Ford, who is also a plaintiff, Attorney Jeffrey Newman, Andrew Magni, who is a plaintiff in another case, but is here by agreement of the defendants, and Anthony Driscoll. Both Mr. Magni and Mr. Driscoll are victims of Father Shanley. I'd like to thank you first for coming in here, and as is typical in depositions, I'd like to go over a few ground rules. Nothing exceptional, but a few ground rules. The first is if at any time during this deposition you care to take a break, if you'd like to take a pause, just tell me and we're happy to accommodate that. If at any point in time you want to go over your answers to any of the questions that you've given, modify or change them in any way, I'm going to give you that opportunity and you can just indicate that to me and I'll let you do that. I would like you to -- and this is something that happens frequently. It's not directed at you. If you could listen to the question and try to respond to the question. Your attorneys will have the opportunity for cross-examination. If at some point you care to give an explanation, I'll be happy to accommodate that. Finally, there is a problem that exists in many depositions, and it's certainly not unique to this one. The witness sometimes has a tendency to anticipate what the question will be and then answer before the question is finalized, which makes it difficult for our court reporter. Do you understand those instructions? A: I do, and I'll try to abide by them. Q: I appreciate that. If I refer to you as Cardinal, is that acceptable, Your Eminence? A: Sure. Q: Could you please state your name. A: My name is Bernard Francis Law. Q: And you are presently the Archbishop of Boston; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And you're one of 17 cardinals in the United States; is that correct? A: I don't think there's 17 of us. Q: How many are there? A: I think there are 12 U.S. citizens who are cardinals. Q: And you're one of those 12? A: I'm one of those 12. Q: And you have held your position as Archbishop of Boston since 1984; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And you were elevated to cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 1985; is that correct? A: Correct. Q: Now, you're aware that a complaint has been filed against you in this matter by Paula, Rodney and Gregory Ford. Are you aware of that? A: I am. Q: Have you had the opportunity to review the complaint? A: I have not reviewed the complaint in its detail. Q: Okay. What we have in front of you as Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the complaint, and you'll see the caption in the complaint of Gregory, Paula and Rodney Ford. Do you see that at the front of this action? A: Yes, I do. Q: If you could turn, Your Eminence, to page 5 of the complaint, if you could, please. You'll see Paragraph 15, it states: "Father Shanley's sexual molestation of Gregory" -- and it states Gregory was born in 1977. "While Gregory was a minor between the ages of approximately six and twelve, Father Shanley repeatedly sexually molested him, approximately between 1983 through 1989." That last portion is in parentheses. Do you see that? A: I do, yes. Q: And you're generally familiar with complaints in civil lawsuits that to start a civil action, a complaint is filed? A: Yes. Q: And you're a defendant in a number of cases at the present time; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: You've been deposed previous to today; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: Are you also generally aware that after a complaint is filed, there is an answer that gets filed on behalf of the defendant? A: I presume so. I don't handle legal matters, but... Q: Could you look at Exhibit 2, please, which is the answer that has been filed in this case, and let me ask first whether you've ever seen that answer that was filed on your behalf? A: Well, let me go through it. Q: Sure. Absolutely. Please take your time. A: (Witness reviewing document.) The answer to this is that I have not seen this document. Q: You've engaged attorneys on your behalf to file the answer; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And that would be Mr. Todd and Mr. Rogers; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And Your Eminence, I've got a note from down at the end of the table if you could try to speak up just a little bit because this room does not have good acoustics. A: Yes. Q: If you could turn your answer to page 5, if you could, please. MR. ROGERS, III: Page 5 of the answer? MR. MacLEISH: Page 5 of the answer, that's correct. Q: Would it be accurate to state that you are generally familiar with the nature of the Fords' allegations against you and the Archdiocese of Boston? You're generally familiar with it? A: I'm generally familiar, yes. Q: You're generally familiar with the fact that they are alleging that their son Gregory, when he was a young child, was molested by Father Shanley, as you just read out of the complaint? A: I am aware of that. Q: And you're generally aware that the complaint of the Fords is that their young son was molested at the rectory at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A: I'm aware of the allegation that he was molested. I was not -- I don't have a recollection of where that molestation took place. Q: But you were aware that the acts of molestation are alleged to have taken place at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A: I'm aware they were alleged to have taken place by Father Shanley. Q: That's correct. And you've also been -- you were at St. Jean's Parish when it was still open on at least one occasion; is that correct? A: I believe that's correct. Q: Was that for the Silver Jubilee, so-called Silver Jubilee of Paul Shanley? A: I cannot recall what the occasion was. Q: Turning to Exhibit No. 2 and looking at Paragraph 5, it states as follows, and -- I'm sorry. Page 5, about halfway down the page, it states: "And further answering, the defendant says" -- A: Excuse me. I'm confused. Q: Sure. Absolutely. A: I have the wrong document. Q: Okay. You see there's numbered paragraphs and then there's two paragraphs without numbers. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: I'm going to read from the second one. "And further answering, the defendant says that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care but, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs contributed to the cause -- to the injury or damage complained of; wherefore, the recovery of the plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part or subject to diminution." Do you see that language? A: I do. Q: And you see in that language that it is stated by the defendant that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care. Do you see that? A: I don't see that, but -- yes. I was below that. Yes, I see that. Q: And that it was, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs that contributed to cause the injury or damage complained of? A: I see that. Q: And the injury and damage complained of here is the sexual molestation of a young child. You understand that, correct? A: I understand that. Q: Can you provide any factual basis to support the assertion that is contained in your answer that somehow the negligence of Paula Ford, Rodney Ford or Gregory Ford, in the words of the complaint, contributed -- the answer, rather, contributed to cause the injury or damages complained of? Do you know of any facts to support that? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, but go ahead and answer. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead and answer. A: This -- no. My answer to the question is no. Q: Okay. As you sit here today, can you conceive of any facts that would support the assertion that a six-year-old child was somehow negligent in allowing himself to be abused by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted. MR. ROGERS: The plaintiffs -- MR. TODD: The plaintiff is not a child. MR. MacLEISH: The plaintiff -- if you'll turn to the first page, the plaintiff is Gregory Ford. MR. TODD: And Paula Ford. MR. ROGERS: Paula Ford. MR. TODD: And Rodney Ford. MR. MacLEISH: Gregory Ford. Q: Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. We just read from the complaint, Your Eminence. Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. Are you aware of any set of facts that could conceivably support the argument that a six-year-old child could in any way be responsible for his abuse by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can answer. A: As I indicated earlier, Mr. MacLeish, I have not seen this document before now. Q: I understand that. A: I was being represented in this document by counsel. I did not enter into the formulation of that response, and so I haven't a basis upon which to engage in a response on this. If you're asking me personally if a six-year-old child could have contributed negligence in a case like this, I would say the answer to that is clearly no. Q: What about the parents, Cardinal Law? Can you in any way conceive of a set of facts that would support the assertion that the parents of a six-year-old child could somehow be negligent with respect to the sexual abuse of their child by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. Speculative. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A: Mr. MacLeish, I can answer that theoretically. I cannot answer that with specificity to the parents of this child because I have no facts concerning the parents of this child. Q: Mm-hmm. A: But theoretically, I would suppose that one could presume that if parents were to put their child in the position of jeopardy for someone whom they suspected to be a risk, there would be some degree of negligence there. But I say that's a theoretical response. It in no way moves to the victim himself or herself, and it no way mitigates the responsibility of the person who would have committed the abuse. But could there be contributory negligence on the part of those who have supervision? I presume that, theoretically, that could be the case. But, again, I respond that under the terms of the specific case before us, I have no knowledge whatsoever of contributory negligence. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX GREGORY FORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Defendant. Superior Court
Civil Action
No. 02-0626
---------------------------------
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants. Civil Action
No. 02-0822
-------------------------------------
ANTHONY DRISCOLL,
Plaintiff, vs. BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1737 THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Kathleen M. Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, commencing at 10:06 a.m. K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-0815 APPEARANCES:
Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, Robert Sherman, Attorney, David G. Thomas, Attorney, Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney, and Gina Dines Holness, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney
One Storey Terrace
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson D. Rogers, III, Attorney, and Mark C. Rogers, Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for the Defendants
Todd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally ALSO PRESENT:
Colleen Surrette
Diane Nealon
Rodney Ford
Paula Ford
Anthony Driscoll
Andrew Magni
Father John Connolly
Father Christopher Coyne
Sandy Grossman
George Libbares
Wayne Martin
P R O C E E D I N G S (Law Exhibit No. 1, Complaint and Jury Demand, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 2, Answer of the Defendant Bernard Cardinal Law to Plaintiffs' Complaint, marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Labbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Today is June 5, 2002, and the time is 10:06 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Gregory Ford, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, and Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Cardinal -- versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Defendants, and Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard Law, et al., Defendants, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex. This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathleen Silva with K. L. Good and Associates of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts 02209. Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath. MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the plaintiffs. MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the plaintiffs. MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman for the plaintiffs. MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the plaintiffs. MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on behalf of all defendants, including His Eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law. MR. ROGERS III: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of Cardinal Bernard Law and all the defendants. MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wilson Rogers, Jr., on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Law, and all the defendants. MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of the Cardinal personally. MR. MacLEISH: Before you do the oath, we have some stipulations for the record. As I understand it, we are stipulating that all objections except as to form and motions to strike are reserved in this case until the time of trial. Mr. Todd, you also want to make another stipulation? MR. TODD: That prior stipulation will apply to the audio-visual deposition as well. MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. Mr. Rogers, you also wanted to make a continuing objection on First Amendment grounds; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Yes. We would interpose an objection as to any questions going to the internal workings of the Church, and to obviate the need of raising it on an ongoing basis, I'd like to agree we have a continuing objection to this line of inquiry. MR. MacLEISH: We have such an agreement. Could you swear the witness in. MR. TODD: And the objection of one party will stand for all parties, correct? MR. MacLEISH: That's acceptable. MR. ROGERS: Did we -- is it clear on the record that this deposition applies in four cases? MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure when we did -- MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. That's my prior agreement with your son. It also applies to the case of Andrew Magni as well. Are we ready to swear the witness in? BERNARD F. LAW was sworn on oath by the reporter. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH Q: Good morning, Your Eminence. A: Good morning. My name is Eric MacLeish and I'm counsel for the plaintiffs in these actions. To my right is Paula Ford, who is also a plaintiff. To my left is David Thomas, Robert Sherman, Mr. Rodney Ford, who is also a plaintiff, Attorney Jeffrey Newman, Andrew Magni, who is a plaintiff in another case, but is here by agreement of the defendants, and Anthony Driscoll. Both Mr. Magni and Mr. Driscoll are victims of Father Shanley. I'd like to thank you first for coming in here, and as is typical in depositions, I'd like to go over a few ground rules. Nothing exceptional, but a few ground rules. The first is if at any time during this deposition you care to take a break, if you'd like to take a pause, just tell me and we're happy to accommodate that. If at any point in time you want to go over your answers to any of the questions that you've given, modify or change them in any way, I'm going to give you that opportunity and you can just indicate that to me and I'll let you do that. I would like you to -- and this is something that happens frequently. It's not directed at you. If you could listen to the question and try to respond to the question. Your attorneys will have the opportunity for cross-examination. If at some point you care to give an explanation, I'll be happy to accommodate that. Finally, there is a problem that exists in many depositions, and it's certainly not unique to this one. The witness sometimes has a tendency to anticipate what the question will be and then answer before the question is finalized, which makes it difficult for our court reporter. Do you understand those instructions? A: I do, and I'll try to abide by them. Q: I appreciate that. If I refer to you as Cardinal, is that acceptable, Your Eminence? A: Sure. Q: Could you please state your name. A: My name is Bernard Francis Law. Q: And you are presently the Archbishop of Boston; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And you're one of 17 cardinals in the United States; is that correct? A: I don't think there's 17 of us. Q: How many are there? A: I think there are 12 U.S. citizens who are cardinals. Q: And you're one of those 12? A: I'm one of those 12. Q: And you have held your position as Archbishop of Boston since 1984; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: And you were elevated to cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 1985; is that correct? A: Correct. Q: Now, you're aware that a complaint has been filed against you in this matter by Paula, Rodney and Gregory Ford. Are you aware of that? A: I am. Q: Have you had the opportunity to review the complaint? A: I have not reviewed the complaint in its detail. Q: Okay. What we have in front of you as Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the complaint, and you'll see the caption in the complaint of Gregory, Paula and Rodney Ford. Do you see that at the front of this action? A: Yes, I do. Q: If you could turn, Your Eminence, to page 5 of the complaint, if you could, please. You'll see Paragraph 15, it states: "Father Shanley's sexual molestation of Gregory" -- and it states Gregory was born in 1977. "While Gregory was a minor between the ages of approximately six and twelve, Father Shanley repeatedly sexually molested him, approximately between 1983 through 1989." That last portion is in parentheses. Do you see that? A: I do, yes. Q: And you're generally familiar with complaints in civil lawsuits that to start a civil action, a complaint is filed? A: Yes. Q: And you're a defendant in a number of cases at the present time; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: You've been deposed previous to today; is that correct? A: That is correct. Q: Are you also generally aware that after a complaint is filed, there is an answer that gets filed on behalf of the defendant? A: I presume so. I don't handle legal matters, but... Q: Could you look at Exhibit 2, please, which is the answer that has been filed in this case, and let me ask first whether you've ever seen that answer that was filed on your behalf? A: Well, let me go through it. Q: Sure. Absolutely. Please take your time. A: (Witness reviewing document.) The answer to this is that I have not seen this document. Q: You've engaged attorneys on your behalf to file the answer; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And that would be Mr. Todd and Mr. Rogers; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And Your Eminence, I've got a note from down at the end of the table if you could try to speak up just a little bit because this room does not have good acoustics. A: Yes. Q: If you could turn your answer to page 5, if you could, please. MR. ROGERS, III: Page 5 of the answer? MR. MacLEISH: Page 5 of the answer, that's correct. Q: Would it be accurate to state that you are generally familiar with the nature of the Fords' allegations against you and the Archdiocese of Boston? You're generally familiar with it? A: I'm generally familiar, yes. Q: You're generally familiar with the fact that they are alleging that their son Gregory, when he was a young child, was molested by Father Shanley, as you just read out of the complaint? A: I am aware of that. Q: And you're generally aware that the complaint of the Fords is that their young son was molested at the rectory at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A: I'm aware of the allegation that he was molested. I was not -- I don't have a recollection of where that molestation took place. Q: But you were aware that the acts of molestation are alleged to have taken place at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A: I'm aware they were alleged to have taken place by Father Shanley. Q: That's correct. And you've also been -- you were at St. Jean's Parish when it was still open on at least one occasion; is that correct? A: I believe that's correct. Q: Was that for the Silver Jubilee, so-called Silver Jubilee of Paul Shanley? A: I cannot recall what the occasion was. Q: Turning to Exhibit No. 2 and looking at Paragraph 5, it states as follows, and -- I'm sorry. Page 5, about halfway down the page, it states: "And further answering, the defendant says" -- A: Excuse me. I'm confused. Q: Sure. Absolutely. A: I have the wrong document. Q: Okay. You see there's numbered paragraphs and then there's two paragraphs without numbers. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: I'm going to read from the second one. "And further answering, the defendant says that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care but, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs contributed to the cause -- to the injury or damage complained of; wherefore, the recovery of the plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part or subject to diminution." Do you see that language? A: I do. Q: And you see in that language that it is stated by the defendant that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care. Do you see that? A: I don't see that, but -- yes. I was below that. Yes, I see that. Q: And that it was, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs that contributed to cause the injury or damage complained of? A: I see that. Q: And the injury and damage complained of here is the sexual molestation of a young child. You understand that, correct? A: I understand that. Q: Can you provide any factual basis to support the assertion that is contained in your answer that somehow the negligence of Paula Ford, Rodney Ford or Gregory Ford, in the words of the complaint, contributed -- the answer, rather, contributed to cause the injury or damages complained of? Do you know of any facts to support that? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, but go ahead and answer. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead and answer. A: This -- no. My answer to the question is no. Q: Okay. As you sit here today, can you conceive of any facts that would support the assertion that a six-year-old child was somehow negligent in allowing himself to be abused by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted. MR. ROGERS: The plaintiffs -- MR. TODD: The plaintiff is not a child. MR. MacLEISH: The plaintiff -- if you'll turn to the first page, the plaintiff is Gregory Ford. MR. TODD: And Paula Ford. MR. ROGERS: Paula Ford. MR. TODD: And Rodney Ford. MR. MacLEISH: Gregory Ford. Q: Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. We just read from the complaint, Your Eminence. Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. Are you aware of any set of facts that could conceivably support the argument that a six-year-old child could in any way be responsible for his abuse by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can answer. A: As I indicated earlier, Mr. MacLeish, I have not seen this document before now. Q: I understand that. A: I was being represented in this document by counsel. I did not enter into the formulation of that response, and so I haven't a basis upon which to engage in a response on this. If you're asking me personally if a six-year-old child could have contributed negligence in a case like this, I would say the answer to that is clearly no. Q: What about the parents, Cardinal Law? Can you in any way conceive of a set of facts that would support the assertion that the parents of a six-year-old child could somehow be negligent with respect to the sexual abuse of their child by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. Speculative. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A: Mr. MacLeish, I can answer that theoretically. I cannot answer that with specificity to the parents of this child because I have no facts concerning the parents of this child. Q: Mm-hmm. A: But theoretically, I would suppose that one could presume that if parents were to put their child in the position of jeopardy for someone whom they suspected to be a risk, there would be some degree of negligence there. But I say that's a theoretical response. It in no way moves to the victim himself or herself, and it no way mitigates the responsibility of the person who would have committed the abuse. But could there be contributory negligence on the part of those who have supervision? I presume that, theoretically, that could be the case. But, again, I respond that under the terms of the specific case before us, I have no knowledge whatsoever of contributory negligence. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
