Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Plaintiffs' Attorney Discusses Church Abuse

Aired May 09, 2002 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And there are critics of Cardinal Law basically saying he's using the same excuse out there this morning, it wasn't me, it was my underlings. The big question this morning, Cardinal Law under fire and under oath. The head of Boston's Catholic Archdiocese yesterday submitted to a court ordered deposition in connection with a civil suit that claims Law was negligent when he OK'd the transfer of a priest accused of molesting scores of young people.

Jason Carroll has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Boston's embattled Cardinal Bernard Law left Suffolk Superior Court after being questioned for the first time under oath about what he knew about defrocked priest John Geoghan and when he knew it. Mitchell Garabedian, the attorney representing 86 plaintiffs in a civil suit filed against the archdiocese, said Law suffered from a case of selective amnesia during his deposition.

MITCHELL GARABEDIAN, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: He's not going to admit anything that he thinks may hurt him, even if it's the truth.

CARROLL: Garabedian showed Law a copy of a letter sent to him in 1984 by a woman who claimed her nephews were molested by Geoghan. Law had initialed the letter and wrote a note to his bishop saying, quote, "Urgent, please follow through."

Law could not recall receiving the letter, but he later admitted when he knew about Geoghan's trouble past. Question: "As of September of 1984, were you aware that Father Geoghan had a history of homosexual involvement with young boys?" Answer: "I was aware that there was involvement because of the -- of having removed him out of one parish and putting him between assignments before sending back to another."

Geoghan was moved to several parishes over the years, even though there were allegations he was sexually abusing children. Law defended his actions, saying Geoghan received psychological treatment. Answer: "I was relying upon those assisting me to handle this adequately, and I was relying on their discretion in terms of the medical expertise." Question: "Did you have any system in place to make sure that the right medical experts were involved?" Answer: "No." Geoghan was convicted earlier this year of molesting a young boy, but he's accused of abusing scores of children. One of his alleged victims was allowed to attend the deposition. Mark Keane said he felt Law was dishonest under questioning.

MARK KEEN, ALLEGED GEOGHAN VICTIM: I was a little intimidated at first. He came off very soft-spoken. He is a very good talker. Not to compare him with Father Geoghan, but I experienced soft-spoken good talkers before, and look where it got me.

CARROLL: Why was Law giving such a deposition? A judge ordered it after the archdiocese backed out of a multimillion-dollar settlement with the same 86 plaintiffs.

(on camera): The Archdiocese of Boston released a statement saying that Cardinal Law answered all of the questions asked of him and that Cardinal Law is looking to settle this matter in an equitable manner. The next deposition is scheduled for Friday.

Jason Carroll, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So that brings us to our big question at this hour -- did Cardinal Law tell the truth?

For his view, we are joined now by Attorney Mitchell Garabedian in Boston, who deposed Cardinal Law in court yesterday. And as we heard in Jason's piece, Garabedian represents 86 people in a civil suit who claim they, too, were sexually abused by Father Geoghan.

Good to see you, Counselor. Thanks for joining us this morning.

GARABEDIAN: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: I know that after the deposition you claimed that the cardinal had selective amnesia. Do you think he was lying?

GARABEDIAN: Well, I'll leave that for the jury to decide. But here you have a situation, for instance, where you, the cardinal received a letter in 1984 from a woman who claimed that seven family members had been sexually molested by Father John Geoghan. The cardinal is a moral leader, a religious leader, and he doesn't remember this letter?

Coupling that with the fact that he asked the bishop to look into this matter because it was urgent, it's just almost unbelievable that he wouldn't remember this situation at all.

ZAHN: But there was another point in the deposition, was there not, where he admitted that he became aware of the accusations against Father Geoghan in 1984 and he said that he turned that matter over to his aides. Do you believe he's trying to shift accountability here?

GARABEDIAN: Well, he's towing the party line. That's what they've done for years in these cases is they blame someone else. It's always somebody else's fault. If it's not the aide's fault, it's the doctor's fault. If it's not the doctor's fault, it's the mother's fault. That's what he's doing and that's exactly what he's doing, he's shifting accountability.

It's questionable whether he never, whether he ever talked to an aide about this once he gave the aide the problem. You mean to say that he didn't speak to the aide and he didn't speak to Bishop Dailey after he asked Bishop Dailey to follow through with this matter involving the sexual molestation of seven children? It's very difficult to understand.

ZAHN: I'd love to quickly review some of the questions you asked of Cardinal Law when you were trying to figure out exactly when he became aware of Father Geoghan's alleged abuses and what he did to stop it.

Let's put up on the screen this series of questions where you said, "Do you remember when you first saw this letter?"

He said, "I don't recall having received the letter."

You said, "On the last page it looks to be a copy of an envelope. There's some handwriting there. Do you know whose handwriting that is?"

The cardinal said, "That would be my handwriting."

Then you went on to say, "OK, and what does that handwriting say?"

And the cardinal says, "It says it is addressed to Bishop Dailey and it says urgent, please follow through."

Do you think this is the smoking gun you were looking for?

GARABEDIAN: Well, it certainly says, the cardinal's answer certainly is suspect in that he doesn't recall, basically. I think it's going to help in our case. Whether it's the smoking gun, I'll leave for the jury to determine. That's a question of fact for the jury to determine. But obviously it raises eyebrows.

ZAHN: In his deposition, Cardinal Law also talked about how the archdiocese dealt with the allegations of molestation. And he said in this deposition, "I viewed this as a pathology" -- and we can put this up on the screen -- "as an illness and so consequential I, not being an expert in this pathology and not being a psychiatrist, not being a psychologist, my, my modus operandi was to rely upon those whom I considered to have an expertise that I lacked in assessing this pathology."

GARABEDIAN: Well...

ZAHN: What is he trying to accomplish there?

GARABEDIAN: He was trying to blame someone else. He was trying to shift the blame to someone else. It was a question of accountability. Don't blame me, it's someone else's fault.

Now, if he passed this on to a doctor, the question remains, was the doctor competent? Was the doctor qualified to make such a judgment? Was the doctor a friend of someone within the church?

Again, those questions will be asked and hopefully answered coming Friday, coming this Friday and Monday.

ZAHN: In the deposition, you, at least the second part, you got into the issue of the actions, the financial council and its vote not to honor the initial settlement. Is it possible that will be enforced?

GARABEDIAN: Well...

ZAHN: And what impact will that have on your clients if it is?

GARABEDIAN: We have a situation where I believe the judge is going to give us what/'s known as an evidentiary hearing within the next two months to determine whether there actually was an agreement and a breach of contract by the archdiocese and the defendants by their bad faith. And the judge could actually enforce this agreement and this matter could be settled at that point in time.

ZAHN: And what would that mean to your individual clients? You're talking about a settlement of anywhere from, what, $15 million to $30 million?

GARABEDIAN: Yes.

ZAHN: What would that mean per client?

GARABEDIAN: Well, what it means per client, breaking down, without breaking down the numbers, is that they'll be sent the message that they were, should not be guilty with regard to this matter, that maybe they can restore some guilt -- some dignity here and may -- and they'll get a message that the church was at fault. That's what the money represents. It's symbolism. It's symbolic.

These are tragic instances. My clients know that money is not going to make them happy and restore their lives to what they should have been. Their childhoods have already been stolen. It's too late for that.

ZAHN: Counselor, a final question for you. The cardinal will be deposed again on Friday. What needs to be asked of him that you didn't get to yesterday?

GARABEDIAN: Oh, we have a multitude of questions. Father Geoghan was a known pedophile from 1967 to 1995 and we have a whole host of questions relating to incidences through those years.

ZAHN: And finally this morning, you say it'll be up to a jury to decide whether the cardinal was lying or not. Can you answer that question this morning, whether you, based on all the documents you've seen, thought the cardinal was telling you the truth yesterday? GARABEDIAN: Again, I'll leave that for a jury to decide. I'll leave that in the hands of the jurors.

ZAHN: And we're going to have to leave it right there this morning.

Mitchell Garabedian, the attorney for Father Geoghan's victims, 86 of them in all so far. Thank you for your time this morning.

GARABEDIAN: Thank you, Paula.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com