COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON MONDAY, 22ND MAY 2006 - DAY 219B EVIDENCE OF BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SEÁN RYAN CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY and MS. MARIAN SHANLEY MR. FRED LOWE I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named action. ______________________ MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT: REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE: MR. B. REEDY COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION: MR. N. MacMAHON SC MS. K. FERGUS SC Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: MR. P. HANRATTY SC MS. S. MOORHEAD BL Instructed by: MR. P. LANKFORD MAXWELL WELDON & DARLEY FOR THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION: MR. B. O'MOORE SC MR. C. DIGNAM BL MR. M. DOWLING BL Instructed by: LAVELLE COLEMAN MR. D. McGRATH SC Instructed by: MICHAEL E. HANAHOE COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to by other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services. INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTION NO. BR. REYNOLDS QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 7 EXAMINED - MR. DOWLING 8 - 215 EXAMINED - MR. McGRATH 216 - 230 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON MONDAY, 22ND MAY 2 2006: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good afternoon. 5 MR. MacMAHON: Good afternoon. 14:48 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. MacMahon. Good 7 afternoon Br. Reynolds. 8 MR. MacMAHON: The Committee is going hear 9 to evidence of Br. Michael 10 Reynolds. 14:48 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Now, Mr. Reedy, 12 will you administer the 13 oath. Thank you very much. 14 15 BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS 14:48 16 QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 17 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, 19 please sit down. 20 1 Q. MR. MacMAHON: I think, Br. Reynolds, you 14:48 21 are the deputy leader since 22 2002 of the St. Mary's province of the Christian 23 Brothers in Ireland? 24 A. That's correct. 25 2 Q. I think that you have responsibility for the northern 14:48 26 half of the country, as one draws a line from Dublin to 27 Galway, and I think Artane comes within that area? 28 A. That's correct. 29 3 Q. I think you have been involved in the preparation of a 4 1 statement for the Commission and you have already given 2 evidence to the Commission in public session on 15 3 September, 2005? 4 A. Yes. 5 4 Q. I think that in your statement, and also in your 14:49 6 evidence, you gave details of the sources of 7 information from which you gave the evidence which you 8 have given? 9 A. I did, yes. 10 5 Q. Which basically is the archives in Ireland and in Rome, 14:49 11 from speaking to various Brothers who worked in Artane, 12 from other documents which have been made available 13 and, indeed, some of which are in the public domain and 14 in media reports. I think that you yourself never 15 worked in Artane whilst it was functioning as an 14:49 16 institution? 17 A. That's correct. 18 6 Q. But I think since last giving evidence in public you 19 have heard the evidence of those who gave evidence to 20 the Committee in private session? 14:49 21 A. I have, yes. 22 7 Q. I think you are again attending in public for the 23 purpose of answering certain questions which may 24 require resolution or clarification? 25 A. Yes. 14:50 26 MR. MacMAHON: I propose handing you over 27 to Mr. Dowling, who I think 28 is going to begin today s questioning. 29 5 1 END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS BY THE 2 COMMISSION 3 4 5 BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 14:50 6 MR. DOWLING: 7 8 8 Q. MR. DOWLING: My name is Marcus Dowling, 9 I am a barrister and I have 10 been instructed to act on behalf of the interests of 14:50 11 all the people who made allegations in relation to 12 Artane. I think you understand that, that I want to 13 ask you some questions about both the evidence that you 14 gave in September 2005 and the written statement that 15 you have prepared in relation to Artane? 14:50 16 A. Yes. 17 9 Q. I think you have a book of documents, I appreciate you 18 only got them this morning but you have had a chance 19 maybe to look through it during the morning. 20 Obviously, I appreciate you are not going to be 14:50 21 familiar with the detail and all of the contents of the 22 documents and I propose referring to that at various 23 stages. 24 A. I would have to say it does contain about 500 pages, so 25 I will find it difficult to. 14:50 26 10 Q. In aid of everybody I am not go to be referring to all 27 the documents. 28 MR. HANRATTY: Just to clarify it, Sir, 29 and, again, lest it be 6 1 suggested that the witness is unprepared, he was given 2 this dossier of approximately 500 documents this 3 morning and he did take time out from the hearing this 4 morning, he left the hearing basically to try and at 5 least figure out what they were about. But there may 14:51 6 be instances where documents are put to him which for 7 obvious reasons he is not familiar with. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it is not his fault. 9 11 Q. MR. DOWLING: In fairness, it is not 500 10 documents, it is 500 pages. 14:51 11 Most of the ones I will be dealing with are documents 12 which this witness has already identified. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: It may be. 14 MR. DOWLING: It may be uncontroversial. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I anticipate that we are 14:51 16 not going to have to worry 17 about a lot of the documents, that everybody will be 18 somewhat familiar with them. 19 12 Q. MR. DOWLING: I first think I would like 20 to ask you, Br. Reynolds, 14:51 21 just in relation to your written submission, I think 22 that you said that the submission was based upon 23 various documentation that you discovered both in 24 Ireland and in the archives of the Christian Brothers 25 in Rome; isn't that correct? 14:51 26 A. Yes. 27 13 Q. You also say that your submission and your evidence 28 that you gave were based upon interviews with Brothers 29 who worked in Artane; isn't that correct? 7 1 A. I'm not sure I said interviews. Maybe I did. 2 14 Q. Sorry, it is on page one of your submission. You say: 3 "The content in this submission is based on material in the Congregation 4 archives in Ireland and in Rome, on interviews with Brothers and others who 5 worked in Artane Industrial School and 14:52 then on the discovery." 6 7 A. Not interviews in the formal sense, you know. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Conversations. 9 A. Yeah, conversations with people. 10 15 Q. MR. DOWLING: I am not going into that, 14:52 11 that's all I want. So you 12 spoke to Brothers to assist you in preparing this 13 submission. What I just wanted to ask you was, because 14 I have read through the submission carefully, you don't 15 appear to have, as a result of those converstaions, 14:52 16 been told anything particularly negative about the 17 institution by the Brothers that you spoke to. 18 A. Most of the information I sought was information that 19 wasn't in dispute, because I felt if a Brother was in 20 Artane it really wasn't within my remit and I did not 14:52 21 want to be accused of trying to interfere with the 22 system. So I talked about matters like dormitories, 23 the duties of a disciplinarian, the duties of the 24 Resident Manager, that type of information, rather than 25 referring to specific incidents of abuse. I limited 14:53 26 myself to that deliberately. 27 16 Q. I understand that there was a line drawn where if the 28 Brother had a specific allegation of abuse made against 29 him you wouldn't ask him about that allegation of 8 1 abuse? 2 A. Yes. 3 17 Q. But did you ask other Brothers about allegations of 4 abuse generally, and whether they witnessed abuse or 5 were aware of abuse -- sorry, the word abuse, you 14:53 6 introduced that -- were aware of excessive punishment, 7 sexual abuse, did you ask other Brothers generally, 8 look, I am not talking about things that you are 9 accused of but were you aware of any physical abuse or 10 sexual abuse when you were in Artane? 14:53 11 A. The only thing I would say in the most general of 12 manner or if came up in casual conversation, for the 13 simple reason that I was quite aware, and I think it 14 came up when I was giving evidence on 15th September, 15 that I hadn't, by way even of preparation for 15th 14:53 16 September, read directly through all the submissions of 17 complaint, because I felt that it would be 18 inappropriate for me to comment on any individual one 19 during a public hearing when I knew they were going to 20 be the matter of private hearings. So I stayed well 14:54 21 clear of that type of information. 22 18 Q. Br. Reynolds, I am obviously not making myself clear. 23 I am not asking you about specific allegations of 24 abuse, and you are quite correct in saying that you 25 don't comment on specific allegations of abuse in 14:54 26 either your written submission or in the evidence that 27 you gave, that's correct. 28 A. Yes. 29 19 Q. I am asking you about the general allegations that you 9 1 do comment upon. For example, that there was a culture 2 of excessive punishment and systemic sexual abuse in 3 Artane. You commented on those general allegations; 4 isn't that correct? 5 A. I did. 14:54 6 20 Q. And you disagreed that they were fair comments to make 7 about the institution? 8 A. Yes. 9 21 Q. Could you not have asked the Brothers, without going 10 over the line which you very properly -- I mean I don't 14:54 11 know if it is proper, but you thought, I think on legal 12 advice, that you shouldn't do that and you followed 13 that the whole way through, and I accept that. Could 14 you not have asked Brothers generally whether or not 15 these allegations of a culture of excessive punishment 14:55 16 or systemic sexual abuse did they have any knowledge of 17 that, were they aware of that? 18 A. That was certainly part of the conversation. The 19 general tenor of the response was that people, first of 20 all in relation to corporal punishment and allegations 14:55 21 of physical abuse, were saying that they didn't find 22 Artane as an abusive institution and that the 23 administering of corporal punishment didn't differ to 24 any great extent from other primary schools in which 25 they had worked. Also, Brothers would have said in 14:55 26 very general terms, so general as "I was not aware of 27 sexual abuse while I was in Artane". That was the type 28 of responses we had. But when that came I didn't press 29 them on any individual, obviously I didn't, on any 10 1 individual allegations of which I might have been aware 2 at the time. 3 22 Q. So the response that you received to the general 4 inquiries that you made was one of a general denial 5 that it was an abusive institution, or that Brothers 14:56 6 were aware generally of sexual abuse; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 23 Q. That is reflected in the submissions that you have made 9 on behalf of the Congregation? 10 A. Yes. 14:56 11 24 Q. I am going to come back, perhaps, to how the evidence 12 given during Phase III maybe didn't tally with that in 13 detail. Could I just ask you, in general terms, is 14 that still your view having heard the evidence given 15 during the Phase III -- or Phase II. Sorry, I 14:56 16 apologise? 17 A. It is, yes. 18 25 Q. And you haven't had occasion to revise that view, 19 having heard the evidence given by, in particular, the 20 Brothers who were there I suppose? 14:56 21 A. No, I would say -- well, first of all, I want to be 22 careful not to thread on the domain of the Committee. 23 I heard all the evidence, I heard all the 24 cross-examination, I heard the evidence from both sides 25 of the discussion, as it were, I heard the 14:56 26 cross-examination, I was present for all of it so I 27 observed it as well. Now, I have views on it, whether 28 or not they are of any material use in a hearing like 29 this I don't know, because I am aware that ultimately 11 1 the evidence, having been heard, is now in the domain 2 of the Committee and they have to make findings on it. 3 So, in a sense I have views on it but whether or not 4 anybody wants to hear them or they are of any use I 5 don't know. 14:57 6 26 Q. Br. Reynolds, and again I am aware that it is not your 7 role, clearly, or my role to adjudicate upon individual 8 allegations of abuse, but a great deal of evidence was 9 given by members of Christian Brothers, or former 10 members, about conditions in Artane generally, isn't 14:57 11 that correct, quite apart from the specific allegations 12 made against them. 13 A. Oh yeah, individual Brothers, former Brothers gave 14 evidence in relation to practically all aspects of 15 Artane, yes. 14:57 16 27 Q. And they gave general evidence about, for example, the 17 system of corporal punishment in Artane; isn't that 18 correct? 19 A. They did, yes. 20 28 Q. In relation to that evidence, the general evidence, 14:57 21 that evidence of specific allegations, did that 22 evidence not give you cause to revise your view? If you 23 like, did that not make you think, God, maybe those 24 blanket denials I received at the start they weren't 25 correct, there does appear to have been a culture of 14:58 26 excessive corporal punishment? 27 A. First of all, I don't agree that I made blanket 28 denials. I gave instances of abuse that I documented. 29 I couldn't do anything more in relation to that. I 12 1 would say in relation to what I heard in the public 2 hearings, I would say there was a spectrum across which 3 the practice in relation to corporal punishment ranged 4 from, at one end of the spectrum, people who gave 5 evidence that they rarely, if ever, used corporal 14:58 6 punishment, to others who said, yes, they used it quite 7 frequently. And interspersed in all of that there were 8 people who said there were occasions, irrespective of 9 where they fitted on the spectrum, that there were 10 instances in which they may have lost the head and gone 14:58 11 overboard. But I certainly didn't hear any body of 12 evidence that I personally -- and I have to stress this 13 is my view. I didn't hear any body of evidence that 14 would lead me to dramatically change from saying Artane 15 was an institution which was run according to the 14:59 16 times. There were instances of corporal punishment, 17 there were instances of severe corporal punishment, 18 there were instances in which people clearly broke the 19 rules, but that in the round, in the overall it was not 20 an abusive institution. 14:59 21 29 Q. Can I just ask you in relation to that, and I suppose 22 there is a number of different parts to your answer 23 there. Did you hear evidence, and again, obviously, 24 not trespassing on the specifics, but wasn't evidence 25 given by a number of Brothers and ex-Brothers that when 14:59 26 they went to Artane they were extremely young when they 27 went there and had very little experience; isn't that 28 correct? 29 A. Yes. 13 1 30 Q. And that they said that they arrived, they were 2 extremely young and that they were, if you like, just 3 immediately thrust into the middle of having to control 4 huge numbers of boys; isn't that correct? 5 A. Not totally. I can clearly recall evidence being given 15:00 6 of somebody arriving in August or in July, the end of 7 July, early August in whatever year it was, talking to 8 the older Brothers there, talking to the principal. 9 That guidelines were given by the principal in relation 10 to -- I'm not saying very specific or written, but 15:00 11 guidelines were given in relation to how a school 12 classroom could be managed, and then the Brother, 13 admittedly a young Brother. 14 15 But overall I would say the average age of the Brothers 15:00 16 was somewhere in the mid 20s. In the primary school 17 I'm talk about now. If you included the total 18 institution it was much older. 19 31 Q. Isn't it the case though that a number of Brothers gave 20 evidence that they saw themselves as very young, 15:00 21 inexperienced Brothers, thrust into what was variously 22 referred to as an impossible situation, a daunting 23 situation and that they felt that they had very little 24 guidance from the management of the Order and how to 25 cope with that situation. I accept maybe some Brothers 15:01 26 gave different evidence, but didn't a number of young 27 Brothers give that evidence? 28 A. They did, but not in total. What they were saying was 29 they were trained as teachers but they weren't trained 14 1 in childcare or in other aspects of run the 2 institution, for which they then found themselves with 3 responsibility, without any, not just without adequate, 4 but without any training for that aspect of the work in 5 Artane. 15:01 6 32 Q. And they found that very difficult to deal with, isn't 7 that correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 33 Q. For example, and, again, this isn't anything to do with 10 a specific complaint, but, for example, one Brother 15:01 11 gave evidence that he was told when he arrived that he 12 was going to be dealing with a different type of boy 13 than he would outside, and that you had to be very 14 strict with those boys and you couldn't give them an 15 inch. Do you remember that evidence? 15:01 16 A. I don't, but I accept that if you are quoting it that 17 it was given, yes. 18 34 Q. Another Brother, when talking about, for example, his 19 practice of hitting boys on the bare backside with a 20 leather, he gave evidence and he accepted that he 15:02 21 wouldn't have done that if the boys were in a day 22 school? 23 A. I am not sure that I heard anybody saying that, that 24 was his practice. I have a recollection that I heard 25 someone saying he may have done it once. 15:02 26 35 Q. Sorry, that is my fault. I think he said he did it 27 more than once, but he said that he accepts that it 28 wouldn't have happened in a day school? 29 A. Yeah, correct. 15 1 36 Q. You recall that? 2 A. Yes. 3 37 Q. Did you not think when you were listening to that 4 evidence that you had a situation where young Brothers 5 would be put into a situation without any proper 15:02 6 instruction, which made them more liable to engage in 7 excessive punishment, that the system may have given 8 rise to a greater incidence of excessive punishment in 9 Artane? 10 A. Just before we come to that. Talking about that it 15:02 11 wouldn't have happened in a day school, it didn't 12 happen in the school context, as far as I remember, it 13 happened outside of school. I am not sure that he 14 would be quite correct, even if he did say it, that 15 that couldn't have happened outside of school, in an 15:03 16 ordinary home at the time. 17 38 Q. But that was his view, as somebody who had been a young 18 Brother in Artane in the 1950's and 1960's; isn't that 19 correct? 20 A. What was his view? 15:03 21 39 Q. That it wouldn't have happened if -- he wouldn't have 22 done it if he was working in a day school. That's what 23 he said. 24 A. But he wouldn't have been in the situation. He 25 wouldn't have been caring for the children outside of 15:03 26 school hours if he was in a day school. 27 40 Q. That is, I suppose, in some ways exactly the point. 28 What I am asking you is did you not think that the 29 situation maybe gave rise to a culture of excessive 16 1 punishment? That the scenario of Artane, the number of 2 boys, the fact that young Brothers were sent into 3 Artane with no training gave rise to a risk that they 4 were going to punish boys excessively? 5 A. It may have in some instances, yes. But I am not 15:03 6 saying that the situation was that it gave rise to 7 wholesale breaking of rules and wholesale excessive 8 corporal punishment. I don't accept that. 9 41 Q. Okay. Can I just ask you -- and this was touched upon 10 by the Chairperson during the course of his questioning 15:04 11 of your colleague Br. Gibson at the last hearing -- in 12 relation to, again, what it was like for a young 13 Brother going into Artane, do you recall hearing 14 evidence during Phase II that a number of Brothers felt 15 that they were being punished by being sent to Artane 15:04 16 and that it was a kind of dumping ground for the 17 Brothers? Do you recall that evidence? 18 A. I don't. In fact, I recall the opposite. I recall 19 distinctly one Brother stating that he was told by his 20 higher Superiors that they only sent the best to Artane 15:04 21 and he looked at that as being a compliment. I do 22 recall Brothers, or former Brothers saying that they 23 knew they were going to a difficult situation simply 24 because if they were going to an ordinary school, be it 25 primary or secondary, once school was ended well then 15:04 26 their duties, as it were, for the day were over. 27 Whereas in Artane their duties for the day continued on 28 to the care of the children after school hours. 29 42 Q. I wonder is that correct, Br. Reynolds. For example, i 17 1 know one Brother said, when he was describing generally 2 what Artane was like, he said: 3 "The other thing was a lot of the time 4 people would ask you why were you sent to Artane? That was there, why were 5 you sent to Artane?" 15:05 6 Then he went on to say that he met a lady, in the 7 context of Irish dancing, and the first thing that she 8 said to him was: 9 "What did you do to be sent there?" 10 15:05 11 Do you recall that evidence, do you? 12 A. I don't. But if you are reading from evidence I will 13 accept that, yes. But I am not sure that anything 14 great turns on it if somebody asks "why were you sent 15 here?", "what did you do to be sent here?". That could 15:05 16 be said from any point of view. It could be said to 17 Joe Coastly, it could be said in the context you now 18 have ended up with a very difficult job, why are they 19 sending you here? I am not sure that it is something 20 that you could make any great finding on, to be honest 15:05 21 with you. 22 43 Q. One of reasons why I asked you about that, Brother, is 23 because one of your colleagues who has admitted to 24 sexually abusing a boy, one of the things that he 25 identified in his -- he wrote a letter, I think, it is 15:06 26 at page 220 of the book that you have in front of you 27 there. 28 A. Just bear with me please. 29 44 Q. We can put it up on the overhead projector as well. 18 1 A. Is this relating to a specific case which came up at 2 the private hearings. 3 MR. HANRATTY: I am just slight concerned, 4 Sir, that we are heading 5 into the specifics of evidence in relation to a 15:06 6 specific allegation which, if we are, would require the 7 witness to be allowed to refer to specifics of evidence 8 to deal with it. It seems to me, and maybe I 9 misunderstand the rules, that it is going to lead us 10 into an area where it is going to be very difficult for 15:06 11 the witness to answer questions without dealing with 12 the wider context in which the evidence was given, 13 including the identity, without necessarily naming him, 14 but identity by description of the person concerned. 15 MR. DOWLING: It is in the general 15:07 16 discovery that was made, so 17 it wasn't discovered in the context of a specific 18 allegation of abuse. There are a variety of documents, 19 in terms of letter, that have been read out already 20 this morning and this is no different from them. 15:07 21 A. Could I disagree with you on that for one minute, 22 because I now see what the letter is and I recognise 23 it. It was a letter with which the Congregation had 24 quite some difficulty, because it came to the notice of 25 the Congregation through redress and we were wondering 15:07 26 were we entitled to discover it at all. But we said we 27 will air on the side that is against us rather than 28 anything else, we will give it to the Committee and we 29 will leave it then to the Committee to decide whether 19 1 or not it is usable. So, in one sense it is quite a 2 difficult one for me to deal with. 3 45 Q. I want to ask about this letter just in the context 4 because it is an example of an verified incident of 5 sexual abuse that doesn't appear to have been identify 15:07 6 in the opening. There is a large amount of general 7 comment on Artane in the letter which has nothing to do 8 with the specific allegation. For example, the 9 question that I want to ask now is just a comment about 10 people wanting to get out of Artane, it is nothing to 15:08 11 do with the allegation either. It was discovered in 12 the general discovery, I wasn't aware that it was 13 subject to any particular qualification. It is no 14 different from any other document that has been 15 referred to here this morning already or was referred 15:08 16 to during the course of the hearing in September 2005. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Dowling, the particular 18 passage in the letter that 19 you are proposing to use we think is appropriate for 20 you to use as a general commentary to elicit what 15:09 21 Br. Reynolds has to say about it, but the letter 22 otherwise has a lot of difficulties about it. It 23 seems -- I mean, let me be plain. The difficulty is 24 there is no point -- let's take an example that is not 25 immediately relevant here. There is no point in us 15:09 26 having heard evidence in Phase II, in private, where we 27 heard the full set of allegations and the full set of 28 responses, and then going through a process here where 29 that is, in edited form, gone through using code. 20 1 MR. DOWLING: I don't intend doing that. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, sorry, I am giving 3 the context of this. That 4 is unsatisfactory and it is unhelpful from our point of 5 view because it is not really focussing on the issue. 15:10 6 It is not as if we are ignoring the issues that arose, 7 we are just saying this is not the place where it is 8 proper to debate them. All right. 9 10 In this instance, Mr. Dowling, the short answer is we 15:10 11 think the particular passage you are referring to you 12 are free to refer to it. As to other areas of the 13 document we would be concerned that there would be 14 problems. 15 MR. DOWLING: I wasn't going to refer to 15:11 16 the other areas in any 17 event. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: So far so good. Fine.. 19 46 Q. MR. DOWLING: So if I could just ask you 20 to look at the document. I 15:11 21 am sorry, maybe I should have made myself clear, it is 22 just in relation to the writer's comments on the job 23 that he thought that he had to do at the time that I 24 wanted to ask you about. 25 A. What page? 15:11 26 47 Q. It is page 221. 27 A. Yes. The piece at the bottom of the page, is that what 28 you are referring to? 29 48 Q. Actually the middle of the page as well, I suppose, 21 1 rather than come back to the document I will ask you 2 about it all in one go. To writer makes reference to 3 the apology issued by the Christian Brothers, which 4 contain the phrase: 5 15:11 "Absolutely nothing could excuse the 6 child abuse which occurred." 7 8 And he said that he doesn't agree with that and still 9 doesn't agree with it for the following reasons. Then 10 he gives reasons: 15:11 11 "The absence of vetting procedures in 12 selecting personnel for these places meant it was possible to choose someone 13 who was entirely unsuitable for the institution. Consequently, isn't it 14 likely that mistakes were made in this regard. After all, it would be grossly 15 unfair to choose a kleptomaniac to work 15:12 as a cashier in a bank, or a person 16 with a weakness for alcohol as a bartender in a pub. The only reason 17 ..." 18 19 And I don't want to read this out because it might 20 identify the writer, so I will just skip this. Then he 15:12 21 goes on to say that: 22 "A doctor has described Artane and similar places as mine fields for the 23 staff." 24 Then this is the specific. 25 15:12 "The workload was excessive in the 26 extreme, 12 staff to cater for 400 plus boys." 27 28 Then he states that of a number of staff who were there 29 in a particular year only three remained afterwards. 22 1 They all left eventually. Then he said: 2 "If it was a lay school there would 3 have been far more staff. All of the aforementioned tasks were the 4 responsibility of twelve Brothers, ordinary human beings, with no 5 qualifications except the teacher 15:12 training from Marino. In lay hands, 6 complete with trade union support, there would have been a staff of 40 or 7 50, or even more, and some would say that there was absolutely no excuse 8 whatsoever when things went wrong. 9 To error is human and their human nature was stretched to the limit in 10 Artane. It was for me an unnerving 15:13 experience to be assigned to supervise 11 400 plus boys at breakfast, in a large hanger sized refectory on my own, 12 before I had taken a bit to eat for myself. I stuck it for one year only. 13 Perhaps I would have benefitted from a course in self-assertion before my 14 transfer to Artane, and then i could have acted like some, who reluctantly 15 went to Artane on the condition they 15:13 got out after 6 months or a year. I 16 certainly wouldn't be in the predicament in which I find myself at 17 present." 18 19 I suppose that letter touches upon a number of things 20 that I have asked you about already, in terms of the 15:13 21 evidence that was given by individual Brothers during 22 the course of Phase II, that they were effectively 23 faced with an impossible task, to perform under 24 extremely difficult conditions. Insofar as there were 25 incidences of excessive punishment or abuse, do you 15:14 26 accept the criticisms made by that writer, that they 27 were as a result of what management at the Order asked 28 the young Brothers to do? 29 A. I don't, and I would seriously disagree with the first 23 1 piece that you read out, which says that when the 2 Congregation said in their apology that nothing can 3 excuse child abuse. He seems to be saying that 4 something can. I would have to disagree with him at 5 this stage. 15:14 6 7 Secondly, I know who the person was and I know what his 8 duties in Artane were. Now, unfortunately, if I start 9 saying what they were he will be identified. But they 10 weren't as onerous, as rigorous or as time consuming as 15:14 11 that letter gives to believe. And you do now the 12 context in which the letter has been written. 13 49 Q. So you don't accept the criticisms? 14 A. I don't accept the criticisms that are put in this 15 letter, no. 15:15 16 50 Q. As far as you are concerned, if he says that there was 17 a situation whereby some people only went to Artane and 18 they were sufficiently assertive to insist that they be 19 let out of it as quickly as possible, that that's not 20 your belief, even having heard the evidence in Phase 15:15 21 II? 22 A. No. Even the piece about everybody except she leaving 23 in 1963 baffles me. I don't believe that for a minute, 24 because if you read the visitation report of 1963 and 25 read the community list, and read the community list 15:15 26 and the visitation report of 1964 you will find a huge 27 overlap. So I am not sure what that particular 28 sentence means. 29 51 Q. I don't think he's referring to all of the Brothers, 24 1 and he's not referring to them leaving the next year. 2 He's saying that maybe ten or fifteen years later of 3 the twelve young teaching Brothers only three of them 4 were left. That's what he is talking about. 5 A. Left where? 15:15 6 52 Q. Left in the Order, as they have all left the Christian 7 Brothers? 8 A. What comparator are you using? The first school that I 9 taught in, which was an ordinary primary school, in 10 1968, and seven of us started together and there were 15:16 11 some Brothers there, of the seven of us who started 12 there at that year I think there may be myself and one 13 other left. So I am not too sure what the comparison 14 is, by simply taking raw numbers and saying X number 15 started, in 15 years time Y numbers remained. What are 15:16 16 you comparing that with to say whether it was big, 17 small or otherwise? 18 53 Q. I am just telling you what it says in the letter and 19 asking you to comment upon it. And you don't accept 20 that? 15:16 21 A. And that's my comment, yeah. 22 54 Q. There is just one other thing I want to ask you about 23 this, and it is just in relation to other evidence that 24 was given during Phase II in this regard. In fact, one 25 of the young teaching Brothers in the early 60's said 15:16 26 that -- he give gave a picture, and this was said by a 27 number of Brothers, that there were a number of 28 middle-aged Brothers whom it was generally felt were 29 not doing any work and that the young teaching Brothers 25 1 actually thought it was so bad that they actually went 2 and complained at one stage about what they saw as the 3 unfair division of duties, whereby they, as a small 4 group of young men, were asked to perform a huge amount 5 of work, and other people, as far as they were 15:17 6 concerned, didn't do anything. Do you remember that 7 evidence? 8 A. I do. I can't remember the individual person. I 9 remember the evidence arising maybe on three occasions, 10 one was somebody from the late 40's. I don't actually 15:17 11 remember that one, but obviously you are quoting one. 12 I know that there was reference to it in the visitation 13 report of 1968. But just to put it in context. In I 14 think it was 1955, '56, I took that year because it is 15 the middle, if you know what I mean, between 1940 and 15:17 16 1970 as being a sort of in between year, and I found 17 out that in the primary school that year there was a 18 principal and there were 13 teachers. In the remainder 19 of the institution there were 17 people who had 20 designated duties, Resident Manager, bursar, 15:17 21 disciplinarian, three Brothers teaching in night 22 school, the continuation school, a band manager, a 23 technical trades school academic manager, a person in 24 charge of trades, a farm manager, a poultry farm 25 person, two in aftercare, one in the boy's kitchen, one 15:18 26 in the community kitchen, one looking after provisions 27 and the other supervising the knitting school. 28 55 Q. Br. Reynolds, you have not answered the question I 29 asked you. 26 1 56 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What year was that? 2 A. I think, I am not sure Mr. Chairman, but I think it was 3 55/56. It is, I have it here, it is 1955/56. 4 57 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And there was principal and 5 13 teachers. 15:18 6 A. Yes. 7 58 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: There were 17 other 8 Brothers doing specific 9 jobs; is that right? 10 A. Yes. And there may have been three or four retired, 15:18 11 who had been working in the place and who literally 12 were retired and were doing nothing in other words. 13 59 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the significance, 14 Brother, do you say in 15 relation to the issue Mr. Dowling is saying, which is 15:18 16 that the younger Brothers were complaining that the 17 older ones weren't pulling their weight? 18 MR. DOWLING: That's what I am asking, 19 yes. 20 A. There is no doubt that the younger Brothers carried a 15:19 21 lot of the -- they carried the teaching and the 22 supervision. But I am saying that is ignoring the 23 Resident Manager, the disciplinarian, those who were 24 teaching in the continuation school. A lot of the 25 other people, 17 of them to be precise, had a job 15:19 26 description and, therefore, they couldn't -- they may 27 have been able to take part in some of it, but 28 certainly I don't think it was a situation where the 29 Brothers in the school did everything and nobody else 27 1 did anything. That's the point I am making. 2 60 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 3 A. Secondly, I would want to say that I also heard 4 evidence in which people disagreed with that. It came 5 up, certainly, in evidence in relation to the 40's, 15:19 6 somebody mentioned that. I remember then people sort 7 of clinging on to that as if it were absolutely fixed. 8 61 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: For all time. 9 A. Yes. And then there was different views on it. 10 62 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Inevitably it would. 15:19 11 obviously, it would differ 12 depending on who the people were and what the numbers 13 were, I suppose 14 A. Yes. 15 63 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But there was evidence that 15:20 16 there were older Brothers, 17 whether they are retirees or not I don't know, who 18 wouldn't even take the boys out for a walk unless they 19 were prodded into it by the principal, Brother 20 Superior. Am I correct about that? 15:20 21 A. Correct. I would be pretty clear that in that 17 that 22 I mentioned none of them took the boys out for a walk. 23 Then taking the boys out for a walk was not a job that 24 you would give to somebody who wasn't fully able 25 bodied. Whereas being in charge of the band might be. 15:20 26 64 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It was quite a -- I mean, 27 we are talking about large 28 numbers. 29 A. It was. We are talking about maybe 120, I think, was 28 1 mentioned, two Brothers and some monitors, and they 2 brought them out walking around north county Dublin and 3 brought them all back. 4 65 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It was quite a picture, of 5 a little crocodile going 15:20 6 around. 7 MR. DOWLING: I am going to finish up on 8 this very quickly. I think 9 actually, Br. Reynolds, you may do the principal at the 10 time a disservice, because the evidence given by that 15:20 11 Brother that they went in, in deputation to the 12 principal to complain about the amount of work that 13 they had to do, and that the principal actually acted 14 on that and then after that the older Brothers treated 15 them as persona non grata. 15:21 16 A. What year is that? 17 66 Q. There is not a year. It is in the early 1960's. 18 A. Yes. 19 67 Q. Just on the same as the last thing again, because I 20 suppose I just wanted to ask you to comment on this 15:21 21 because, again, you have said that you don't accept 22 what Brothers said about it being a penance. For 23 example, the particular Brother who gave that evidence 24 gave evidence that when he went to Artane he met a 25 Brother who went on to become a senior person in the 15:21 26 Christian Brothers and: 27 "...he was so disgusted that he was 28 sent there. He thought this was a penance and he said to me one day "I 29 wonder what my parents would say if they thought i was in this place. And 29 1 he pleaded heaven and earth to get out." 2 3 Then he said: 4 "I saw that particular man do a 5 terrible thing, I saw that fella where 15:21 he had just sat down in class, put his 6 head in his hands and wouldn't do a tap and care if there were any 7 interrupting. You would go into class after him and there would be bedlam, 8 pandemonium." 9 10 That's more evidence that was given of this perception 15:22 11 that it was a form of a penance, or it was an awful job 12 to get, to go to Artane. But you don't accept that? 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: A punishment posting. 14 MR. DOWLING: A punishment posting. 15 A. I don't think that's a good reading of that, because I 15:22 16 remember that particular evidence. I think that 17 particular man was saying that he was somebody who was 18 sent to Artane who didn't actually do what he was 19 supposed to do. Now, whether or not that was in order 20 that he be changed out I don't know. 15:22 21 68 Q. That's a letter that is criticising the person for 22 doing that. 23 A. Yes. 24 69 Q. But it does point to a perception that it was, as the 25 Chairman said, a punishment post. But you don't accept 15:22 26 that? 27 A. I don't accept that, and i would say the vast, vast 28 majority of Brothers wouldn't accept that. Because I 29 also remember evidence being given by a lot of people 30 1 about how proud they were of the work they did there, 2 and the amount of work they did there, and the best 3 years of their lives were given to Artane, which was 4 much more common than that type of criticism. 5 70 Q. This is a matter for the commission, but I am not sure 15:22 6 that is actually correct if you read through the 7 evidence of the Brothers who gave evidence in relation 8 to Artane. 9 MR. HANRATTY: With respect, it is correct 10 in terms of a description 15:23 11 of the evidence that was given. 12 MR. DOWLING: For the vast majority it 13 is not correct. I have 14 just read the transcripts over the last three days and 15 it is not correct. But it is a matter for the 15:23 16 Commission. The witness has said that, I will 17 respectfully disagree with it, having just read the 18 transcripts, and the Commission can decide. If I can 19 just ask you to deal with the identifiable. I think in 20 your statement, the written statement that you have 15:23 21 produced, if I could ask you to have a look at that 22 Br. Reynolds. I think it is laid out in quite a 23 helpful format, because you identify verifiable 24 instances of abuse, isn't that correct? 25 A. Yes. 15:23 26 71 Q. And then there are particular documents that are 27 referable to those instances; isn't that correct? 28 A. Yes. 29 72 Q. The first thing I just wanted to ask you about is 31 1 obviously you have identified a certain number of 2 verifiable -- we will deal with sexual abuse first of 3 all. You have identified a certain number of 4 verifiable instances of sexual abuse that were carried 5 out by Brothers when they were in Artane. In other 15:24 6 words, you know that the Brother was in Artane and when 7 he was there he abused boys; isn't that correct? 8 A. We identified six of those and five of them took place 9 prior to 1944. 10 73 Q. That's correct. Then you also identify -- because, 15:24 11 obviously, you are familiar with the statement but 12 other people mightn't be -- you identify verified 13 incidences of abuse which were committed by people 14 before they were sent to Artane. You have got a 15 certain number of those. I will come back to the 15:24 16 detail in a second, but just to get the general scheme 17 of it. Then you identify Brothers who were found had 18 abused people after they left Artane, isn't that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 15:24 21 74 Q. The first think I want to ask you about is how did 22 you -- because i can't quite work this out from the 23 documents -- how did you come up with the definition of 24 what's a verifiable incidence of abuse? 25 A. Literally that I had a piece of paper that I could 15:24 26 stand over and if the person was alive and came along 27 and said to me, "you can't say that about me" I would 28 be able to say to him well I can, because I have a 29 piece of paper here which enables me to say that. 32 1 75 Q. I don't want to get into the details of this, but I 2 think you have said there were six that you know 3 definitely happened when people were there; isn't that 4 correct? 5 A. Yes. And I have documentary evidence. 15:25 6 76 Q. Yes. But just on my reading of the papers, and it may 7 be something, that documents came to light later, in 8 fact the number in the discovery is nine, there were 9 three other ones, besides the six people that you have 10 there. Maybe I can talk to counsel about this because 15:25 11 I want to be clear. I can find nine where you have got 12 an admission by a Brother 13 A. You would want to be careful on that, because even 14 though I had only a short time i read through some of 15 these this morning and some of the documents don't 15:25 16 refer to people who were in Artane at all. 17 77 Q. I understand that, and I appreciate that, but there are 18 ones that are just generally documents about abuse that 19 was discovered in the archives of the Order; isn't that 20 correct? 15:26 21 A. Yes, if you say you see others. I don't think it is a 22 matter that we can discuss here. 23 78 Q. I understand that. But there are three -- I am going 24 be looking at documents in which there are names 25 mentioned that don't appear to be identified here, but 15:26 26 that's neither here nor there. Then you give the 27 examples of the ones before and after. The first thing 28 I wanted to ask you about, and I suppose this is 29 getting straight to the heart of the issue, and 33 1 Mr. Hanratty very helpfully closed out his examination 2 of your colleague in relation to this, is that you 3 state on a number of occasions that the Christian 4 Brothers didn't understand the recidivous nature of 5 sexual abuse at the time. 15:26 6 A. Yes. 7 79 Q. Do you stand over that statement, do you? 8 A. Yes. 9 80 Q. Could you explain to me what that means exactly? What 10 do you understand when you say: 15:26 11 "to psychological aspects of sexual 12 abuse, its traumatic affect on children and the recidivous nature of such abuse 13 were not understood at the time." 14 What does that mean? 15 A. The recidivism that is talked about now a days was 15:26 16 probably unheard of, I would say, at that stage by 17 professional people dealing with that area. 18 81 Q. I am not trying to be dense about this now, but 19 obviously you are using the term in the technical 20 sense, what does that mean in simple English? It is 15:27 21 someone is liable to re-offend; is that correct? 22 A. Well, it is more really that the likelihood of reform, 23 for the want of a better term, is probably low. 24 82 Q. Is low? 25 A. Yes. 15:27 26 83 Q. And that people are liable to continue doing it? 27 A. Yes, yes. 28 84 Q. It is your evidence, or it is your belief that one of 29 the reasons why the Brothers adopted this practice, 34 1 which you now accept is unacceptable, of sending people 2 who committed abuse from one school to another was 3 because you didn't understand that people were liable 4 to re-offend; isn't that correct? 5 A. No, that the understanding of recidivism as it is today 15:27 6 was not present anywhere among the Brothers or among 7 anybody else at the time. 8 85 Q. Again, I just wonder is that actually correct. Because 9 it seems, on my reading of the documents, and I am 10 going to ask about specifics now, that they knew very 15:28 11 well that people were liable to re-offend, and that 12 they had a large body of evidence about people 13 compulsively re-offending in relation to sexual abuse? 14 A. I'm not sure that that's true. I'm not saying that 15 they didn't know that people did re-offend. 15:28 16 86 Q. That's why I was a bit confused. I mean, they knew 17 that people re-offended, even after they got warnings 18 and stuff, so how did they not know that they were 19 recidivist if they knew that they re-offended? 20 A. Well, there is quite a difference between being 15:28 21 somebody whose character or whose personality 22 predisposes them to this and somebody who offends on 23 whatever number. Because if you went to the opposite 24 spectrum, in the cases that I have outlined here, where 25 people who had abused prior to coming to Artane, you 15:28 26 will see that at the end of each of them I have written 27 down, to the best of my knowledge, that there was no 28 evidence of further abuse when they arrived in Artane. 29 87 Q. That they weren't caught later, not that there was 35 1 no evidence. They were never detected afterwards. 2 A. No. 3 88 Q. If they were doing it, they weren't detected 4 afterwards. 5 A. But sure you could say that about anybody, not just 15:29 6 about this group. 7 89 Q. Could I just ask you about one of those cases, which is 8 somebody who abused prior to going to Artane and I 9 think as you said there, you made the point -- I will 10 just read out exactly what you said. If you could look 15:29 11 at your opening statement, at page 127. 12 A. Yes. 13 90 Q. This is a Brother who was sent to Artane and he was 14 caught sexually abusing before he went there. You say: 15 "Complaints of abuse of a sexual nature 15:29 were made against this particular 16 Brother in Cork in 1938. The accused admitted to having kissed, embraced and 17 fondled boys, but always openly, the mothers were present, and never in a 18 gross manner. He denied touching in the genital area. The lady who made 19 the complaint also stated that although she could not be sure if he touched the 20 boys in the genital area she thought 15:30 not. However, this was not a view 21 shared by the dean in the parish." 22 23 That's actually not what it says in the correspondence 24 but I will ask you about that in a second. 25 15:30 26 "The matter was investigated by the Provincial Council and he was issued 27 with a canonical warning and he was advised that any repetition of his 28 conduct would render him liable to expulsion from the Congregation. Then 29 he was sent to Limerick and then went to Artane." 36 1 2 That's what you said. 3 A. That's true, yes. 4 91 Q. I don't know why you saw to phrase it in that manner, 5 but that doesn't really, I have to suggest to you, tell 15:30 6 the full story of what happened in this case. If I 7 could just ask you to look at page 87 of the documents. 8 This is one of these letters that illegible in a 9 photocopied form, but in the original that we received 10 from the Commission it is possible to read it. What I 15:30 11 have done is I have typed out what it says. It is a 12 letter to the Brother Provincial from, I think, 13 somebody in authority in the Christian Brothers in 14 Cork. This, supposedly, is the basis for what you just 15 said there, though again I am going ask you about that 15:31 16 because I can't quite make them marry together. 17 "My very dear Brother Provincial, 18 I wish to thank you for your kind 19 letter of sympathy to hand this morning. Since I came here I don't 20 think I can recollect so much 15:31 misfortune packed into one week as this 21 has been. I quite agree with you that Br. Blank is to be more pitied than 22 censured. He just has no control over his hands and frequently..." 23 24 The word is actually "pemper" in the document, but 25 presume it is temper. 26 "For the past four years I have always 27 feared that when the inevitable would come in his case that it would be much 28 more serious. A man with definitely pious dispositions, he's an enigma. 29 What annoyed me most was the attitude 37 1 of the dean, his sweeping statements about immorality and Christian 2 (inaudible) in fact all over the place are, I believe, gross exaggerations. 3 Only last year he told me to expel a certain boy from the college for a 4 similar offence, and merely told the boy to leave and gave no reason." 5 6 Then he said that he interviewed the boy's parents and 7 that the boy was readmitted. Then he says: 8 9 "I assure you that all of us here are most particular about these matters, 10 especially as Cork is full of it. Why 15:32 I moved in the case of (two boy's 11 names) at all was because two mothers...and he said the mothers were 12 doctor's wives...asked me to investigate certain bad comment and, of 13 course, language going on in a certain class. I did so. Both the boys 14 admitted immorality frequently and in class, as well as trying to induce 15 other boys into it. I had confirmation 15:32 from others as well. The boy was 16 expelled two years ago for stealing books from the college. I kept him out 17 for two months when his granduncle, a canon, made a final plea for him, 18 giving the usual guarantees for good conduct. 19 His mother, realising the futility of 20 trying to get him reinstated, had to 15:33 adopt the extreme measures, including 21 blackmail." 22 23 Then he said that is his solicitor telephoned him. 24 "It was then her rage boiled over and 25 she wrote the letter which you have. 15:33 In the circumstances I had only to 26 capitulate with the best grace I could. Incidentally, she said that she was 27 sorry to have written such a letter, and she was the dean's informant. I 28 insisted, in fairness to the name of the Brother and on the name of the 29 Brother to who this transfer was given, and knowing if he meddled with boys in 38 1 their private parts, she did not know but thought not. Still, this was a 2 point on which the dean was quite positive. Knowing (the name of the 3 Brother) as I do, as we do, I thank God he did not do worse. 4 It will not prevent him from getting 5 credit for it all the same. To make it 15:33 worse, he was a well known person and 6 not favourably I am sorry to say. It is a case of a woman's revenge and 7 shows that the less we have to do with outsiders the better. I have to allow 8 one of the boys back. I am sorry for this, but all I could to obviate it was 9 futile. I have not mentioned one word to anybody in the house about the 10 events of the past few days, and 15:33 neither shall I. It must remain a nine 11 days wonder." 12 13 That's the part of it dealing with that. First of all, 14 I can't understand how you managed to say in your 15 statement that: 15:34 16 "when he denied touching the genital 17 area, the lady who made the complaint also stated that although she could not 18 be sure if he touched the boys in the genital area she thought not. However, 19 this was not a view shared by the dean in the parish." 20 15:34 21 You didn't actually mention there that the Provincial 22 who received the letter and the Brother who wrote it 23 actually say: 24 "Knowing him as we do, we think he probably would have done worse." 25 15:34 26 You never mentioned that in the summary you gave of the 27 incident. 28 A. Can you refer me to that? 29 92 Q. You say: 39 1 "she did not know, but thought not". 2 3 A. That's certainly in the letter, yes. 4 93 Q. 5 "This was the point at which the dean 15:34 was quite positive. Knowing the 6 Brother as we do, I thank God he did not do worse." 7 8 A. I did say that the dean did not share that view. 9 Meaning, in other words, that the dean's view was that 10 he did. 15:35 11 94 Q. But you don't say that Provincial and the person who 12 wrote this letter in fact would have believed that 13 would have done worse? 14 A. But I mean, what the Provincial believed or didn't 15 believe I am not sure is of any consequence. What I 15:35 16 was saying in the submission is that the lady thought 17 it didn't happen, the dean thought it did. And, 18 obviously, that's the view that I am taking, that if 19 the dean thought it did well then it did happen. 20 95 Q. Can I just ask you in relation to your evidence that 15:35 21 this idea that the Brothers didn't understand that 22 people were liable to repeat. Doesn't this letter show 23 that the person in charge of this Brother knew for a 24 period of four years that he was out of control. 25 15:35 "he had no control over his hands, and 26 that for the past four years I always feared that when the inevitable would 27 come in his case that it would be much more serious." 28 29 So, for four years the person who wrote this letter had 40 1 been waiting for this Brother to get caught? Isn't 2 that what the letter says? 3 A. Essentially that's what the letter says. But that is 4 part of the difficulty. What was the Brother to do, go 5 along and say to him "you are abusing people, I can't 15:36 6 prove this". 7 96 Q. I am not asking about that for the moment. I will ask 8 you that in a second. I am asking you about the 9 statement that the Christian Brothers didn't appreciate 10 that people were liable to re-offend, or that this was 15:36 11 a compulsion, or that it kept happening all the time. 12 A. I would come back to say that this litter, in my view, 13 does not point out that the recidivistic nature of 14 child abuse was known to whoever wrote it. What he is 15 saying is that this individual person, certainly he 15:36 16 believed, abused but he wasn't in a position to take 17 any action on it until he had sufficient proof. 18 97 Q. It doesn't say that he wasn't in a position to take any 19 action on it. In fact, if you read the letter, he only 20 took action on it when the mother blackmailed him. 15:36 21 That's what the letter says. 22 A. Are you sure that doesn't refer to taking boys back 23 into school. 24 98 Q. No, I'm afraid, because it says that: 25 15:36 "she was the dean's informant as well." 26 27 So what the letter identifies is that the mother who 28 wrote the letter, being the woman scorned or a woman's 29 revenge, as it is put in the letter, that she was also 41 1 the person who gave the information to the dean in 2 relation to the Brother who was transferred. That's 3 what it says. 4 A. But she was the mother of two boys who were expelled 5 and she wanted to get them back in. 15:37 6 99 Q. And the way she got them back in was by blowing the 7 whistle on this Brother, whom the author of the this 8 letter and the Provincial knew full well was a menace. 9 I will read it out to you again, Br. Reynolds, because 10 that is quite clearly what the letter says. It says: 15:37 11 "It was then her rage boiled over and 12 she wrote the letter which you have. In circumstances I had only to 13 capitulate with the best grace I could." 14 15 Which is in relation to letting the boy back in. 15:37 16 "Incidentally, she said that she was sorry to have written such a letter..." 17 18 Which is the letter which has the information contained 19 in it. 20 15:37 "...as she was the dean's informant. I 21 insisted, in fairness to...the name of the Brother who the letter is about... 22 on knowing if he meddled with the boys in their private parts." 23 24 So it is quite clear that the information is contained 25 in the blackmail letter. 15:38 26 A. In the letter that the lady wrote, yes. 27 100 Q. Yes. So, in fact -- I mean, I don't know why you 28 bothered saying it, but by saying that they only took 29 action when it came to light. In fact, they only took 42 1 action when they were blackmailed by this woman to get 2 her boy back into the school. I mean, that's what it 3 says in the letter. 4 A. My reading of that letter in particular is that the 5 lady wrote a complaint, when the complaint was read by 15:38 6 the Superior the person was changed out from the place. 7 Prior to that they may have had their suspicions of 8 what was going on but they certainly hadn't any proof 9 of it. 10 101 Q. They had no evidence. 15:38 11 A. No. 12 102 Q. Well, I have to suggest to you that -- I mean you could 13 be write about that, but in fact it doesn't say that in 14 the letter. You have gone too far by saying that the 15 letter shows that they had no evidence. The letter 15:38 16 equally well could be read to say that the guy was at 17 it for four years and we just did nothing about it 18 until we got caught. I am not saying that's correct, 19 but it is equally (inaudible) of that reading than it 20 does of the reading that they took no evidence, 15:38 21 actually that they have no evidence. 22 A. Well they are two readings on it, and I am happy to 23 leave it to the Committee to do their work. 24 103 Q. I have to suggest to you that it is highly instructive 25 that the reading that you take is the one that 15:39 26 exonerates the Christian Brothers, and that's the one 27 that you have volunteered. 28 A. No, I don't exonerate the Christian Brothers, and I do 29 say and have said that the practice of changing a 43 1 person who abused in one institution into another was 2 incorrect. 3 104 Q. If the correct reading of the letter was that they had 4 stood by while this man abused boys for four years -- 5 and, obviously, I am not saying that is the correct 15:39 6 reading -- wouldn't that be a contemptible thing for 7 them to have done? 8 A. Yes. 9 105 Q. Now, if I could just ask you then in relation to the 10 letter that was sent to this Brother. I am not going 15:39 11 to go on to deal with everything in this much detail, 12 but just this while I think of it. It is from 1938, so 13 it is a long time back. This is at page, I think, 108 14 in the book also? 15 A. Is it the second page that you gave me? 15:40 16 106 Q. Yes, it is the second page. It is equally illegible in 17 the book but, again, this is a translation of it. 18 Because I think this letter is interesting again 19 because its goes back so far, but it also deals with, I 20 suppose, the understanding on the part of the 15:40 21 Congregation of what might come out of these things. 22 "My very dear Brother..." 23 24 Sorry, it is very distracting. I know Ms. Moorhead is 25 upset by what I'm saying, but it is very distracting 15:40 26 when she keeps talking. 27 "My very dear Brother, 28 The Brother second consultor has 29 confronted you with the charges which have been made against you regards 44 1 kissing, fondling and embracing the boys under your case and you have 2 admitted that these charges are true. By indulging in such impropriety you 3 have scandalised your pupils, given rise to a great deal of unsavoury 4 gossip amongst them and their parents, done grave injury to the reputation of 5 the college, brought discredit on 15:40 yourself and, I greatly fear, lowered 6 the Brothers in the estimation of a beg section of the public. May God grant 7 that the consequences are not worse." 8 9 What do you think that, that refers to, the worse 10 consequences? 15:41 11 A. I don't know what it refers to. I mean, I am taking it 12 the same way as you are, it is a sentence at the end of 13 a paragraph and I don't know what it refers to. 14 107 Q. 15 "Every Christian Brother is bound by 15:41 his rule, as well as by the laws of 16 charity and justice to do all in his power to safeguard the virtue of his 17 pupils and to assist them as far as he can to preserve their innocence if they 18 have not already lost it. 19 Your conduct was well calculated to rob them of this precious treasure of 20 innocence. What greater wrong could 15:41 you do to them. You can not reasonably 21 make the plea that you did not realise the gravity of your offence." 22 23 Then it goes on to say: 24 "To give him the canonical warning and 25 that if he does it again he will be 15:41 expelled." 26 27 Then it goes on to say: 28 "I must earnestly exhort you to make a 29 determined effort to combat your immoderate tendency to softness in 45 1 dealing with your pupils, and to think seriously over the grave spiritual harm 2 your actions inflict on both them and yourself. 3 Your surest safeguards against this 4 proneness to infeminacy (sic) and all that it connotes will be found in 5 mortification and prayer. Then as a 15:42 penance for the offence with which you 6 are now charged you are to say privately each day during the remainder 7 of lent one decade of the rosary." 8 9 Then he was transferred to Limerick and he was 10 subsequently sent to Artane; isn't that correct? 15:42 11 A. Yes. 12 108 Q. If I could just ask you to deal with a second -- and, 13 again, I am not going through it? 14 A. I am not sure what your question on that letter was. 15 109 Q. Sorry, I didn't actually ask a question, I just read it 15:42 16 out. I suppose in terms of the consequences not being 17 worse, I would have to suggest to you that that's 18 clearly a reference to it being report to the civil 19 authorities, given the other matters referred to in the 20 paragraph? 15:42 21 A. I don't, I must say. If you pushed me on it I think 22 the hint to it is further down. But it is only surmise 23 on my part that they are talking about scandal and 24 scandal to him and scandal to the boy and scandal to 25 the public, and everything else. I am not sure that, 15:42 26 you maybe correct but there is no indication certainly 27 in that sentence to me to say that it has anything to 28 do with civil authorities or otherwise. 29 110 Q. Accept for the fact that they cover off the scandal to 46 1 everybody, they say that a big section of the public 2 knows, that you have done grave hinder to the 3 reputation of the college, you have brought discredit 4 on yourself, you have given rise to gossip amongst the 5 boys and their parents. So the things that you said 15:43 6 you think it refers to, they are all covered off. So, 7 "May God grant that the consequences are not worse". 8 I would suggest to you the only thing that could have 9 been worse from the point of view of the Christian 10 Brothers would be that the police would get involved? 15:43 11 A. I have no idea where you are making the connection, but 12 if that's your opinion. 13 111 Q. Because, Br. Reynolds, everything else is covered? 14 A. Everything else in relation to? 15 112 Q. The things that could be bad. When I said what does 15:43 16 that mean you immediately responded by say, oh, it 17 might get out into the pubic. But he says it has 18 already got out into the public. 19 A. It has got out into some of the public, yes. 20 113 Q. A big section of the public? 15:43 21 A. Can you direct me to that? 22 114 Q. It is: 23 "...lowered the Brothers in the 24 estimation of a big section of the public." 25 15:44 26 A. Yes. 27 115 Q. So isn't it clearly referring to the only thing that 28 could have been worse, which are the civil authorities? 29 A. That's your interpretation is all I am saying, 47 1 Mr. Dowling. 2 116 Q. Would that be your interpretation of it? 3 A. It wouldn't really. Off the top of my head that would 4 not have been my interpretation of that. But I am not 5 saying that you are not correct in that. 15:44 6 117 Q. Would it be fair to say that in relation to any 7 document where it is open to two interpretations you 8 always automatically will assume the interpretation 9 that is most favourable to the Christian Brothers? 10 A. I didn't assume any interpretation. 15:44 11 118 Q. Well, your interpretation of the document will always 12 be the one that is most favourable to the Christian 13 Brothers. 14 MR. HANRATTY: That's, with respect, an 15 unacceptable statement to 15:44 16 make. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: He would scarcely be unique 18 in that, would he, if he 19 were a Christian Brother? No more than Mr. Dowling 20 looking at a document would scarcely lead to the 15:44 21 conclusion favourable. I mean that's the nature of 22 life, Mr. Hanratty. 23 MR. HANRATTY: It is. But what concerned 24 me about it Sir, was. 25 ...(INTERJECTION) 15:45 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Personally, I have to say I 27 am not seeing it in this 28 little sentence. I am not sure that it is obvious one 29 way or the other. Certainly, not to me it is not. 48 1 MR. HANRATTY: No, and I will let that go 2 because we can all 3 speculate until the cows come home. What concerned me 4 about this was to, first of all, suggest to the witness 5 that this was an instance where he was taking an 15:45 6 interpreting favourable to the Brothers and then to 7 immediately jump and say "in every case", without 8 identifying any other case where this is suggested. 9 MR. DOWLING: I am going to identify a 10 number of case. The reason 15:45 11 why I asked that question there, in fairness is because 12 I am going to be suggesting...(INTERJECTION). 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a bit unfair, Mr. 14 Dowling. 15 MR. DOWLING: Then I will withdraw the 15:45 16 question. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: "Aren't you the sort of 18 person who is not going to 19 give me a straight answer" sort of question. 20 MR. DOWLING: Accept for the fact that 15:45 21 the Christian Brothers 22 ...(INTERJECTION). 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: If I am cross-examining and 24 I say "are you the sort of 25 person who is never going to give me -- isn't that the 15:45 26 sort of thing it is? 27 MR. DOWLING: Mr. Chairperson, I would 28 normally accept that. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: In one way it is 49 1 inevitable. Br. Reynolds 2 is a senior member of the Christian Brothers, in one 3 way it is inevitable. If he looks at a piece of paper 4 and there are two ways of looking at it, in one way he 5 would be less than human if he didn't say, well. Do 15:46 6 you know, without deliberately jumping to conclusions 7 at all isn't that sort of inevitable? I mean a 8 policeman will look at a thing one way, a lawyer will 9 look at a thing another way. 10 MR. DOWLING: Other Orders have come here 15:46 11 and they have not taken 12 that approach. In fact, one of the big defences put up 13 by the Christian Brothers is that when a complaint was 14 made against a Christian Brother there is no bar 15 against believing the complainant in taking action on 15:46 16 foot of it. What I am trying to suggest, and I am 17 going to be dealing with that in cross-examination, is 18 that it is a bit rich to say that about what would have 19 happened in the 1950's and 1960's if the Christian 20 Brothers even today aren't prepared to accept the 15:46 21 validity of the complaints when there is evidence 22 there. Or even to give the complainants the benefit of 23 the doubt. 24 25 Now, I am sorry to make a submission, and I am going to 15:46 26 ask questions to deal with that, but I do think it is 27 something that the Commission can look at, because 28 other Orders have taken a different approach. They 29 haven't come here and said every time a document has 50 1 got two meanings, you know, the way I look at it is the 2 Brothers must always be right. They said, no, hands 3 up, we are completely wrong on that. The question 4 wasn't a good question and I will withdraw it 5 A. With respect, my answer was that there were two 15:47 6 interpretations possible and I was leaving it to the 7 Committee. 8 119 Q. MR. DOWLING: Except for the fact that 9 when I asked you what you 10 thought it meant you gave (inaudible). It is not a big 15:47 11 deal. If I could ask you to look at page 150 of the 12 book. This is just the second question I have asked 13 about recidivism. This is a letter in relation to 14 another one of the verifiable cases; isn't that 15 correct? 15:47 16 A. Unfortunately, when I came across it this morning I 17 have a question mark on the top of it, I am not sure 18 what the letter is referring to. 19 120 Q. It is a Brother -- I can assist you in relation to it. 20 It is one of the cases you are identifying. It is not 15:48 21 a Brother who was in Artane, but discovery was made of 22 it in the context of the general discovery in relation 23 to abuse. 24 A. Yes, but if it is not a Brother who was in Artane then 25 I wouldn't have dealt with it. 15:48 26 121 Q. You are dealing with the issue of whether or not the 27 Brothers are aware of the recidivous nature of abuse; 28 isn't that correct? 29 A. Yes. 51 1 122 Q. And you have given evidence that they are not aware of 2 that. 3 A. Yes. 4 123 Q. And this is a document that was discovered by the 5 Brothers, so it is a reasonable document to ask you 15:48 6 about I think. 7 A. Yeah. 8 124 Q. This is from 1956 and the Brother in question, who I 9 think has admitted to abusing boys: 10 15:48 "Br. Blank has made a very strong 11 appeal to the Provincial Council to be allowed back to teach school again. In 12 1950 Br. Blank accused of immodest handling of boys in Clonmel. The 13 Council, after hearing Br. Blank, considered the offence more imprudent 14 than grave, and he promised that no offence would occur again. The 15 Provincial was about to give a 15:49 canonical warning but Br. Blank 16 appealed against it and there was no issue of a formal canonical warning. 17 Then in April 1955 there was another complaint from Clonmel of him again 18 handling boys immodestly. The accusation was grave and concerned a 19 number of boys in first year. Br. Blank admitted the accusation and 20 was given a canonical warning." 15:49 21 22 Now, again, doesn't that suggest that the Provincial 23 Council of the Christian Brothers understood that 24 people were liable to offend even after they had 25 received warnings or telling's off from management? 15:49 26 A. Well, it would certainly, in my estimate, show that 27 they were very slow in moving on this individual in 28 this particular case, yes. 29 125 Q. Yes. But doesn't it show that they had evidence that 52 1 this person was liable to re-offend? 2 A. They had evidence that he actually offended is what I 3 am saying. 4 126 Q. Yes. I just wonder how do you reconcile that with the 5 statement that they didn't understand that sexual 15:50 6 abusers were recidivist in nature? 7 A. There is quite a distinct difference in this sense; 8 that if you compare that with any other crime, because 9 somebody does it on one or two occasions doesn't mean 10 that it is a crime that is inherently recidivistic in 15:50 11 its nature. Whereas sexual abuse is now known to be 12 such. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: But there was actual 14 repetition in this case. 15 A. Yes. 15:50 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Dowling, it wasn't just 17 theoretically this fellow 18 might re-offend, or this sort of person. He actually 19 re-offended. 20 127 Q. MR. DOWLING: That's the question I am 15:50 21 asking the witness. I 22 don't understand how the witness reconciled that with 23 saying that he didn't understand that people would 24 re-offend. 25 A. All I am saying is the following -- I am saying two 15:50 26 things. No. 1, in my view they didn't take 27 sufficiently serious action. In my view, he should 28 have been dismissed. That's what I am saying. What I 29 am saying is there is a difference between saying a 53 1 person offends on occasion (A) and a person offends on 2 occasion (B) and saying this is a recidivistic type of 3 activity. That is what I am saying. There is a huge 4 difference. 5 128 Q. MR. DOWLING: I am a little bit confused, 15:51 6 because it doesn't say in 7 any of the historical documents that we don't 8 understand that people are liable to re-offend. Is 9 there anything document you can point to that gives 10 evidence that they didn't understand that people were 15:51 11 liable to re-offend? 12 A. No. But what I am saying is in recent years a huge 13 body of literature has appeared on the scene outlining 14 the recidivistic nature. If you went back, let's say, 15 ten or fifteen years people in Ireland who were abused 15:51 16 were referred to institutions in which they were 17 supposedly rehabilitated. Some of these institutions 18 actually certified them as having been fit to go back 19 into whatever particular work they were doing with 20 young people at time, and that's within the last 20 15:52 21 years. They now have come to the knowledge that this 22 is not in fact the case. I am saying you are trying to 23 move that type of knowledge back into the 40's and the 24 50's. That is the difference I'm looking at. 25 129 Q. Brother, I am actually saying that they had that type 15:52 26 of knowledge in the 40's and 50's. 27 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, at the risk of being 28 tiresome, sir, I think 29 there is a sort of unfairness here, although the 54 1 witness is coping reasonably well. I think the 2 unfairness, essentially, is we are not comparing apples 3 with apples. The recidivistic nature, characteristics 4 of pedophilia is something that has been recognised in 5 the recent past in psychological circles, and it is 15:52 6 recognised, or has been recognised because of the 7 accumulation of a vast amount of statistical 8 information from everywhere. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's stop there. Let's 10 assume that's right for the 15:53 11 moment. Okay. 12 MR. HANRATTY: Yes. Take, for example, 13 this case that is being 14 referred to. Obviously, if that knowledge, if that 15 understanding of the nature of a sex abuser was 15:53 16 available to the person in charge after the first 17 offence was committed then, clearly, it was 18 unforgivable that that person should have been given an 19 opportunity where it could have been done again. But 20 that degree of knowledge wasn't there at time. It is a 15:53 21 simple fact that in this case this individual did 22 re-offend, but to say that the individual did re-offend 23 is a different thing entirely. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Dowling, what do you 25 say to that? That's what 15:53 26 worries me about this. 27 130 Q. MR. DOWLING: I was going to ask one more 28 question in relation to 29 this. Again, that comes back to the same point, which 55 1 is that the Commission has to, presumably, inquire why 2 it was that the Brothers, when they caught somebody 3 abusing, just transferred them to another school. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you a question, 5 Mr. Dowling? Let's take 15:53 6 the first thing first. Mr. Hanratty says the 7 recidivistic nature of sex abuse and of offenders was 8 recognised in the past, let's say, 15 years. Do you 9 accept that? 10 MR. DOWLING: Well, I might accept that 15:54 11 has a psychological 12 doctrine, but there is evidence that the Christian 13 Brothers knew in the 1940's and 1950's that people were 14 liable to do this and to do it again, and again. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's a different thing 15:54 16 from saying it is 17 psychologically recidivistic. Mr. Hanratty is saying 18 that while the debate appears to be on whether it is 19 recidivistic or not, if that's the case then if 20 somebody offends once the institution ought to be on 15:54 21 the alert from that moment onwards that this is a 22 serious danger, isn't that so? 23 MR. DOWLING: Yes. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it is a different thing 25 from that to debate here's 15:54 26 a situation where it in fact happened -- now this is 27 his point -- where it in fact happened twice. It is a 28 different thing from saying you ought to have 29 understood the recidivistic nature of the problem. I 56 1 mean, that's what Mr. Hanratty is saying and it is 2 somewhat unfair to infer from the fact that it 3 happened, that there were repetitions, that they ought 4 to have known that it was psychologically a feature of 5 it that it was repetitive. 15:55 6 131 Q. MR. DOWLING: If the Brothers detected 7 five to ten sex abusers in 8 a 20 year period and they had evidence that half of 9 them did it over -- and that's just a random number -- 10 and they had evidence that half of those people did it 15:55 11 repeatedly, over prolonged periods of time. I mean, I 12 am not talking about them being psychologist or 13 experts, but you wouldn't have to be a genius to work 14 out that people who do this have a tendency to continue 15 doing it. In fact, to description of a person in 1938 15:55 16 we looked at was of a compulsive person. The Christian 17 Brothers haven't said, in explaining why people moved, 18 look, they just didn't care, or they just wanted to get 19 the person out of one place into another. They said 20 the reason why that can't be condemned the way that it 15:56 21 might be condemned is because they didn't have a 22 sufficiently detailed psychological understanding of 23 it. 24 25 Now, I say that's poppy cock on behalf of the victims. 15:56 26 That it is quite clear that whether they may not have 27 understood it as a psychological concept they clearly 28 knew that people who did this did it as a compulsion. 29 And they also had evidence that they did it repeatedly. 57 1 2 The next letter I am going to refer to is from 3 1959...(INTERJECTION) 4 A. Just before you do...(INTERJECTION) 5 132 Q. Just if I could finish. The person in that case 15:56 6 admitted to doing it three times and the author of the 7 letter himself, when the person says, just to give an 8 example: 9 "I asked him if when he was in Artane 10 or in Dolphin's Barn he had improper 15:56 intercourse with boys. He said that in 11 each case he interfered with a boy once." 12 13 Then the author of the letter says: 14 15 "It would be more likely that more than 15:56 one was involved." 16 17 So, in 1959 somebody in Christian Brothers was able to 18 identify when a child abuser says "I only did it once" 19 that that's rubbish. Because the Christian Brothers 20 probably had a unique amount of information that people 15:57 21 did this as a compulsion and were liable to re-offend. 22 The line that's being put up before this Commission is 23 that, look, the reason why we moved people from A to B 24 wasn't because we didn't care, or we just wanted to 25 move them on, or we were indifferent, the reason why we 15:57 26 did that was because we didn't have the same level of 27 psychological understanding. Now, I don't care whether 28 it is seen as psychological understanding or not, but 29 what I am just asking the witness ...(INTERJECTION). 58 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hanratty is asking. 2 Sorry, all Mr. Hanratty is 3 asking is that you don't confuse the two and don't use 4 an expression -- everybody understands if you say, 5 "look here, you see this fellow abusing here, you see 15:57 6 him abusing again, you ought to put two and two 7 together and assume he is going to abuse again." No, 8 that's not a problem. What he's saying is the 9 psychological condition of recidivism relatively 10 recently recognised ought not to be visited back 70 15:57 11 years ago. That is all he is saying. 12 MR. DOWLING: I can accept that. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Unless you say they ought 14 to have deduced it or 15 worked out before anybody else. 15:58 16 MR. DOWLING: And in fact they did, 17 that's what I am saying 18 because they knew when this Brother said to them I only 19 did it with one boy each time, they were able to 20 immediately say "I don't believe that." That's a 15:58 21 matter for the Commission to decide. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 23 MR. DOWLING: It is not the case 24 that the 25 Christian Brothers said, 15:58 26 "well, we don't know why this happened." No, they said 27 the reason why they moved people was because they 28 didn't understand it. That's effectively a submission 29 in relation to the issue. So I don't know. 59 1 2 (to the witness) You have heard what I said there, 3 without me having to ask you about documents? 4 133 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to, 5 Brother? 15:58 6 A. Before you do -- you said something to the effect that 7 the Brothers just moved them on. In several instances 8 we have submitted to the Committee the Brothers moved 9 them on by dismissing them, you seem to have skipped 10 over that. 15:59 11 134 Q. MR. DOWLING: The excuse -- the 12 reason 13 why I mention that had was 14 because the question of not understand the recidivist 15 nature of abuse is specifically referred to by 15:59 16 Br. Reynolds in his opening statement as an explanation 17 as to why people were moved on. Obviously dismissing 18 somebody is something different but you used that as an 19 excuse for the fact that they were moved on? 20 A. Yes, I used it exactly as Mr. Hanratty did and I 15:59 21 explained earlier today in the technical sense of a 22 psychological condition of recidivism. 23 135 Q. If I could just ask you to look at page 140 and just to 24 comment on that. Page 140 of the book. This is a case 25 of a Brother who was, I think, detected abusing boys in 15:59 26 a school in Nenagh, isn't that correct, then he was 27 asked about whether he had done it in Artane and 28 Dolphin's Barn. Can you see that page 140? 29 A. I ask, but I am an afraid I am confused. 60 1 136 Q. I can tell you which one. 2 A. Can you, please. I interpreted it as being on my 3 submission on page 126 but I may be incorrect. I don't 4 know. 5 137 Q. I think, they are not the right initials anyway, no 16:00 6 that's a different case, that's the golf club case, is 7 page case 3. Well I mean the letters -- no, it is case 8 6 on page 124. 9 A. Yes. 10 138 Q. So if you look at the letter, it says there: 16:01 11 "This morning I asked him when in Artane or in Dolphin's Barn he had 12 improper intercourse with boys. He said that in each case he interfered 13 with a boy once. It would be more likely that more than one was 14 involved". 15 16:01 16 What I am just asking doesn't that suggest that the 17 author of this letter, the same way that the author of 18 the letter or 1938, understood full well that people 19 who did it were liable to keep doing it and to do it 20 repeatedly? 16:01 21 A. He certainly believed that this person had abused more 22 than once, yes. And in that particular case the person 23 was dismissed. 24 139 Q. I understand. If I could just ask you to deal with 25 again one further example of, if you like, this type of 16:01 26 behaviour, which is page 186 in the book. I think 27 that's the one you were just referring to there. 28 That's case 3 on page 126. 29 A. Yes. 61 1 140 Q. And again, this appears to be a case where in that 2 particular case there would have been evidence that the 3 person was doing it repeatedly over a period of time? 4 A. No, I think that particular case, when the person was 5 confronted he also admitted to it having happened prior 16:02 6 to that, if I am reading the right one. I think this 7 was discovered and then when the Brother in question 8 was interviewed he admitted to having abused in other 9 places, Artane was not one of them. 10 141 Q. So, I mean again, I would suggest to you that there was 16:02 11 ample evidence before the authorities of the Christian 12 Brothers that people who did this were liable to do it 13 repeatedly and systematically over a period of time? 14 A. What I said in the submission which you seemed to take 15 issue with, was that the Brothers did not understand 16:03 16 the recidivistic nature of child abuse, that's what I 17 said in my statement, that's the point at which you 18 took issue and I am afraid we are going to have to 19 agree to disagree on that one. 20 142 Q. Would you agree with me then that the Brothers 16:03 21 understood that people who abused children were liable 22 to do it a number of times? 23 A. I would agree with you that the Brothers certainly 24 found out that at some stage, as in this one, when a 25 Brother came along they asked him had it happened 16:03 26 before and he said yes. 27 143 Q. That happened on more than one occasion, and where they 28 discovered that it happened a number of times over a 29 period of time? 62 1 A. In relation to this case? 2 144 Q. In relation to that case and in relation to the other 3 case I just ask you about there, where you said three 4 schools, and there were other cases as well. I don't 5 want to go through them all. 16:04 6 145 Q. MR. LOWE: Brother, am I right in 7 thinking that cases like 8 this were dealt with very discreetly and didn't become 9 common knowledge among all the Brothers? 10 A. I think so yes, in relation, for instance, to one in 16:04 11 Artane, I notice that in the letter coming back, this 12 is the 1944 cases, where Brothers were dismissed, I 13 think if I am correct, it says in the letter that even 14 the other Brothers in the community weren't aware of 15 it. 16:04 16 146 Q. MR. LOWE: Even the Brothers 17 themselves were surprised 18 when their own documents were discovered by some of the 19 cases within it? 20 A. I don't know. 16:04 21 147 Q. MR. LOWE: Some of the evidence, the 22 documents within their own 23 documents, surprised the Brothers themselves? 24 A. Yes. 25 148 Q. MR. LOWE: One of the problems here is 16:04 26 not what was common 27 knowledge and not being acknowledged but rather that it 28 didn't become common knowledge, if you follow what I am 29 saying? 63 1 A. Yes, I think the surprise we were expressing, you see, 2 you have to look at if I come into a province 3 leadership team in 1998 and I am asked did something 4 happen in Artane and I have no knowledge about it and 5 then I go and I get somebody to do the digging up and 16:05 6 they come out and they say that it, "here's the 7 evidence", obviously that comes to a surprise to me. 8 In one sense, I suppose it shouldn't but it does 9 because I didn't know anything about it. I am not sure 10 if that was the question you asked, Mr. Lowe. 16:05 11 149 Q. MR. LOWE: Yes. If I put it in a more 12 simple way. The very fact 13 that it was dealt with so discreetly and didn't get 14 passed down the line to other people meant that each 15 person was discovering the recidivist nature by his own 16:05 16 experience? 17 A. Yes, yes. 18 150 Q. MR. DOWLING: Can I just ask you 19 just two 20 things I want to deal with 16:05 21 very quickly. Just in terms of the number of detected 22 instances of abuse that are referred to in your 23 statement relative to number of Brothers in Artane, did 24 you think that the numbers were extremely high? I 25 mean, do you have a view on the proportion of Brothers 16:06 26 who were in Artane who you had discovered were guilty 27 of sexual abuse? Do you know what the numbers are, 28 first of all? 29 A. I should but I don't. But I think it was something in 64 1 the region of 200 and something, but I can't put a 2 figure on it. That's in the 30-year period I am 3 talking about. 4 151 Q. I think 126 different personnel records have been 5 produced, would that figure...(INTERJECTION)? 16:06 6 A. I haven't got it. 7 152 Q. We can come back to that, but... 8 A. But it is something we can deal with in a submission. 9 153 Q. Just one thing I want to ask you finally dealing with 10 sexual abuse, part of the -- what you, if you like, put 16:06 11 forward as the Christian Brother's position is that 12 they were very open to dealing with complaints and that 13 when complaints were made that they were actioned in an 14 effective manner; isn't that correct? 15 A. Within the? 16:06 16 154 Q. Within the limits of the understanding at the time? 17 A. Yes. 18 155 Q. For example, it is accepted that the police were never 19 called in relation to any incident of sexual abuse by a 20 Brother, isn't that correct? 16:07 21 A. Yes. 22 156 Q. Again, I don't want to do this to death. But during 23 the course of Phase II, do you remember hearing 24 evidence of a layperson who was reported to the police 25 for abusing children, this was in the context of a trip 16:07 26 to Croke Park, do you recall that evidence, two people 27 gave evidence about it, I think? 28 A. I do, and I think it may be overstating it to say that 29 he was report to the police for abusing boys. He was 65 1 reported to the police because two boys who were in 2 Croke Park disappeared and it was discovered they were 3 in his home and the issue of abuse -- from my 4 understanding of it, the issue of abuse was a second 5 discovery, as it were. The discovery from -- if you 16:07 6 see, I think what it said in that, is that it was the 7 Brother in charge of the yard who called in the police 8 or brought it to the attention of the police, that 9 would give me to understand that there was a count made 10 when they came home and two boys -- which is what 16:08 11 happened, seemingly two boys were missing. The Brother 12 in charge of the yard then said it was an absconsion, 13 informed the police of this. It was he called in the 14 police I think. 15 16:08 16 If it was in relation to sexual abuse I would suggest 17 that the person who would have reported it would have 18 been the Resident Manager. 19 157 Q. If the Brother who was in charge of the yard did report 20 it but what he said was there was one evidence where 16:08 21 sexual abuse was happening and he reported it to the 22 manager first and then it was reported to the Gardaí 23 and an investigation was carried out and a second 24 Brother gave evidence that he remembered the Gardaí 25 coming...(INTERJECTION)? 16:08 26 A. No, you are talking about the different case, with 27 respect. 28 158 Q. No, I'm sorry I thought that was the same case. 29 A. No. 66 1 159 Q. The right case is when a Brother gave evidence that 2 there was quite a stir in the school about it, I think 3 that was mentioned by another Brother as well? 4 A. Are you relating to the late 1960's? 5 160 Q. Yes. 16:08 6 A. In that particular case my understanding of it is, if 7 you read through the evidence, is that the Brothers 8 Brother who gave that evidence also mentioned that he 9 had reported a Brother in another institution who had 10 been guilty of sexual abuse. 16:09 11 161 Q. Yes, that's correct. 12 A. He reported him to police. 13 162 Q. The question I wanted to ask you was, so as far as you 14 are concerned the fact that when this layperson abused 15 the boys, that that wasn't a different treatment of lay 16:09 16 people, that's because the police were told that the 17 boys were missing; is that right? 18 A. No, two separate cases. 19 163 Q. I will come back to the first one, I want to ask you 20 about. In relation to the first case how was it that 16:09 21 the police were involved in that case and the police 22 were never involved when Brothers were detected abusing 23 boys? 24 A. Because two boys -- what was reported there was the two 25 boys had disappeared or the Brother in charge of the 16:09 26 yard discovered that there were two boys short when 27 they came back from Croke Park. Then the police had 28 called in and it had been discovered that they 29 disappeared into someone's house, somebody had seen the 67 1 defendant in Croke Park, and brought them into his 2 house on the way home. That's my understanding of it. 3 164 Q. Did that person abuse them? 4 A. It transpired that that person did, yes. But what was 5 reported was two boys were missing. 16:10 6 165 Q. I understand that. But it is ...(INTERJECTION)? 7 A. In other words, what I am saying is the discovery of 8 the sexual abuse was secondary. 9 166 Q. And it wasn't, the fact that this 10 discovery...(INTERJECTION)? 16:10 11 167 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We can rule that out as an 12 instance of reporting by 13 the Brothers of sexual abuse against a boy, we can 14 forget that one. It did happen that it got reported 15 but it wasn't an example of reporting. But there was 16:10 16 another instance where there was an example and on this 17 occasion, my understanding, was the boys complained, 18 having arrived back at the institution and they 19 complained about the person who had brought them back? 20 A. That's right. 16:10 21 168 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And as a result that was 22 reported and followed up by 23 the Gardaí; isn't that right? 24 A. Yes. 25 169 Q. MR. DOWLING: Why do you think it 16:10 26 was 27 that the Brothers were 28 prepared to report the second incident to the police 29 when they wouldn't report the case...(INTERJECTION) 68 1 170 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: To cut to the chase, if you 2 like, Mr. Dowling. Why did 3 it never happen that a Brother was reported for alleged 4 sexual abuse to the guards? 5 A. I don't know. But if you are making the comparison I 16:11 6 did point out to you that by 1968, or whatever year 7 that particular one was, that the Brother in question 8 did state in evidence at the private hearings that he 9 did in fact report a Brother from an institution to the 10 -- not to the Gardaí, to the local health authority and 16:11 11 asked them what he should do and they said they would 12 report it the Gardaí. 13 171 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, maybe you are 14 right about that and it is 15 not in my mind. But generally speaking we have very 16:11 16 few, a tiny, tiny number of reports of any institution, 17 of any member of a religious order, even though there 18 were examples of such abuse Brother. I suppose the 19 question is, was that to protect the institution? In 20 the interests of the institution put before the 16:12 21 interest of justice or of the child? 22 A. That may well have been, is all I am saying. I don't 23 know. I would guess that it wasn't, as was said in 24 evidence this morning, that it wasn't common practice 25 right across society, I am not trying to excuse it, I 16:12 26 am just saying that happens to be a fact. It certainly 27 wouldn't happen nowadays is what I am saying. In fact, 28 I think they were also discovered to the Committee, the 29 Christian Brothers had very detailed procedures 69 1 published and put into place, I think, as early as 1992 2 or 1993 which were discovered to you, which really 3 predated probably everybody else in the country in that 4 relation. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Dowling, I don't 16:12 6 know if that goes to the 7 end of that. 8 172 Q. MR. DOWLING: That's the end of the 9 sexual abuse matters. Can 10 I just ask you to deal very briefly with some of the 16:13 11 instances of physical abuse that you identified? 12 A. Yes. 13 173 Q. One thing that I was just struck in relation to your 14 statement was that you gave a number of examples of 15 physical abuse; isn't that correct? 16:13 16 A. Yes. 17 174 Q. I will just get to the beginning of them? 18 A. Just give me a second please and I will get those. 19 Yeah. 20 175 Q. I just want to find the page. 16:13 21 A. 108 in my submission. 22 176 Q. If I could just ask you to look at the end of your 23 submission in relation to physical abuse, where you 24 give a comment. It is page 112, do you see that? 25 A. Yes. 16:13 26 177 Q. You say that: 27 "The above case and the manner in which they were dealt with merit some 28 comment. It would seem that at least some of the cases were dealt with 29 internally and no involvement with the Department of Education." 70 1 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Slow down a bit, 3 Mr. Dowling. 4 MR. DOWLING: 5 "Was left to the Resident Manager with 16:14 no indication that an independent 6 investigation was carried out. The low key approach from the Dail, the 7 Department, the Resident Manager and the media is indicative of the attitude 8 of society at the time of corporal punishment". 9 10 Now, just turn over the page. 16:14 11 "Case 9, and to a less extent cases 5 12 and 6, demonstrate the need for caution when investigating such allegations". 13 14 If I could just ask you to...(INTERJECTION). 15 A. Sorry, I didn't catch that. 16:14 16 178 Q. You say on the next page: 17 "Case 9, and to a lesser extent cases 5 and 6, six demonstrate the need for 18 caution when investigating such allegations". 19 20 A. Yes. 16:14 21 179 Q. Now, just looking at case five first of all, what were 22 you saying when you said that about them having a need 23 for caution? 24 A. No. 1, we are doing it in retrospect and it would 25 appear that there was some type of investigation and it 16:15 26 would appear that the person accused put in a response, 27 I would say probably a denial, be it good, bad or 28 indifferent, and that in actual fact I am not 100% 29 sure. I do know in relation to why I said that, in 71 1 relation to No. 9. Oh yes, the Resident Manager then 2 did investigate it and all I am saying about it is the 3 written evidence that we have is that the Resident 4 Manager came to the conclusion that the allegation 5 didn't stand up, or certainly didn't stand up fully. 16:15 6 180 Q. Okay. Now, have you looked at the documentation in 7 relation to those three cases, case five, six and nine? 8 A. I presume I have, but when you ask me have I looked at 9 it, I haven't looked at it in the last six months. 10 181 Q. Could I just ask ...(INTERJECTION)? 16:15 11 A. I have no doubt you are going remind me of some. 12 182 Q. I am going to ask you to look at some of the documents 13 now if you don't mind. If I could ask you, first of 14 all, to look at page 121 of the book. No, 119 of the 15 book. 16:16 16 A. Sorry, just bear with me for a minute, please. 17 183 Q. Page 119. Let me be sure I have the right one of these 18 things here. No, sorry, that's the wrong one. No, 19 sorry, it is page 113 in the book, I apologise for 20 that. So, this is a complaint of physical abuse that's 16:17 21 made by a boy? 22 A. Yes. 23 184 Q. I think you recorded there, there is reference to -- 24 sorry, this is case No. 6. There is a complaint of 25 physical abuse made by a boy. He identifies a 16:17 26 particular Brother, which is the same Brother as in 27 case five and a Department official wrote to the 28 Resident Manager and requested him to investigate the 29 matter and then the Department official sent on a 72 1 letter signed by the boys. 2 3 It is an anonymous letter, it is illegible 4 unfortunately in the discovery. It was sent from 5 Artane to the Minister for Education complaining about 16:17 6 the severity of the punishment by the said Brother . 7 8 9 So this is a case where a particular complaint is 10 receive in relation to a Brother; isn't that correct? 16:17 11 A. Yes. I am a little by behind, sorry, I am just a 12 little bit behind you. 13 185 Q. It is page 113, 114. 14 A. At 113 I seem to have page two and page three of 15 something; is that correct? 16:18 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it starts on page 112. 17 186 Q. MR. DOWLING: I am only going ask 18 you 19 about page 114 actually 20 because I think you summarise fairly well to the 16:18 21 letter. There is a letter from the Department. 22 A. Case six, is it? 23 187 Q. Yes. Which says: 24 "Explain this, the same Brother is identify in the letter in respect of 25 whom there has been an earlier 16:18 complaint". 26 27 And the Department obviously when they get in these 28 complaints say, "hold on a second, we have just got 29 another anonymous complaint about this same Brother 73 1 signed by the boys from Artane." I think it was a 2 letter sent -- all I can make out of the letter is that 3 it is sent to Jack Lynch, the Minister for Education. 4 A. Yes. 5 188 Q. You probably have a copy of that letter which is 16:18 6 legible, the copy we have is not legible. This 7 complaint is sent in, it is about something that as 8 been in a previous complaint and the Department for 9 good measure throw in the anonymous letter that they 10 received, that's a fair summary of what happened; isn't 16:19 11 that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 189 Q. Then there is a response sent two weeks later with a 14 retraction effectively. Not a refraction of the 15 allegations, a statement which is supposedly from the 16:19 16 boy, in which he says that the allegations are 17 unfounded; isn't that correct? 18 A. All right. 19 190 Q. I know your colleague was asked to comment on a similar 20 type document this morning in terms of it being 16:19 21 credible. But if I could just read out the retraction 22 and ask you whether you think it is really credible 23 that the allegation was without foundation and that 24 this retraction is valid: 25 "In about the middle of October I gave 16:19 back chat to Br. Blank. I also took up 26 a bottle and let on that I was going to hit him with it." 27 28 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: What are you referring to? 74 1 MR. DOWLING: Page 114. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry. 3 191 Q. MR. DOWLING: 4 "I was told TO report to Br. Blank about this, I did not report it. When 5 I was in bed at about 8:30 Br. Blank 16:20 called me and he gave me some slaps but 6 he did not hit me on the face or ear or eyes. I had everything forgotten until 7 I got out for the day on 17th November". 8 9 So there is a complaint made about a Brother about who 10 there has been previous complaints, the Department sent 16:20 11 on a letter which they received, albeit anonymously, 12 complaining about the Brother, and this document is 13 furnished by the Christian Brothers in response; isn't 14 that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16:20 16 192 Q. Obviously you weren't there, but do you think that's 17 credible, looking back on it? Isn't that the kind of 18 retraction that looks like somebody was sat down and 19 given a pen and told to write it? 20 A. I haven't passed any comment on that. I have given the 16:20 21 information I have in the pages in front of me, I have 22 given what I have in documentation and I mean I have 23 handed it to the Committee. 24 193 Q. Except for the fact that you have made a comment on it 25 because you have identified this as one of the three 16:20 26 cases which you say demonstrates the need for caution 27 when investigating such allegations? 28 A. Correct. The only reason I put that in was because 29 they were three cases in which it wasn't clearcut. 75 1 There were toings and froings and there was evidence 2 about it. The person in question, who is long 3 deceased, had given his response. It seem to have been 4 investigated. The point I was making, in fact, was 5 that in my view what should have happened was the 16:21 6 Department of Education should have come out and 7 investigated it, they didn't. That's what we have as a 8 result. I am giving it to the Committee. But for me 9 to say that somebody did or didn't sit down with boys, 10 I haven't any evidence of that either, is all I am 16:21 11 saying. 12 194 Q. Just in relation to that and this is, I suppose, what 13 this comes to the wider issue. You have said that as 14 far as you were concerned there were structures in 15 place in Artane that would allow boys to make 16:21 16 complaints and that those complaints would be 17 entertained; isn't that part of your evidence? 18 A. Yes. 19 195 Q. Doesn't this contradict that, because it suggests that 20 if a complaint was made what you have, in fact, is a 16:22 21 form of cover up? That is what it looks like, it looks 22 like a boy was instructed to retract the allegation? 23 A. With respect, that's your interpretation on it. 24 196 Q. Isn't that a reasonable interpretation of the document? 25 A. On what grounds? 16:22 26 197 Q. On the grounds that it seems very strange that a 27 complaint would be made by a boy's father about a 28 Brother whom had been identified in an earlier 29 complaint, about whom the Department have received an 76 1 anonymous complaint and it is sent to the Resident 2 Manager and two weeks later the boy writes a note in 3 which he exculpates the Brother and says it never 4 happened? 5 A. But if you go to case nine, a complaint was made about 16:22 6 a boy having been beaten about the head and being 7 bandaged and when he came to the office to make a 8 complaint the medical officer from the Department of 9 Education was there, removed the bandage and found out 10 that he had ringworm. 16:22 11 198 Q. Can I just ask you, does that raise any question in 12 your mind about the statements you made that the 13 Brothers would deal with complaints fairly and on their 14 merits? Those papers, if they don't they don't. You 15 are being asked to comment on things that have happened 16:22 16 and you have commented on them? 17 A. I wouldn't be happy with the way that was investigated 18 is what I am saying. I don't know who wrote this 19 particular letter, I know who the Brother accused is. I 20 don't know who wrote that particular letter, I don't 16:23 21 know who carried out the investigation. I don't know 22 who that statement was given to. It may have been 23 given to the Resident Manager, but I am not sure. 24 199 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the retraction in 25 the December, it does seem 16:23 26 to have gone on for a long time? 27 A. It does, yeah. But I am saying it isn't outside the 28 bounds of possibility that there could be other 29 explanations. I am leaving that again to the 77 1 Committee. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 3 A. I am pointing out that not only is not outside the 4 bounds of possibility, but there is actually in case 5 nine a case in point where a Brother was being accused 16:23 6 of beating the boy about the head and the boy was 7 bandaged and it turned out to be ringworm. 8 9 The other one, I forget which one it is, there is also 10 a complaint from a person naming two boys who have been 16:23 11 abused in Artane who were never in Artane. So when I 12 am coming across these historical documents I am not 13 going to call a judgment on them, the best I can do is 14 put what I have in the documentation into a submission, 15 give it to the Committee and say, "there you are." 16:24 16 200 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mind you, one is inclined 17 to scratch one's head a 18 little, Brother. 19 A. At this one, I have no doubt about that. 20 201 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If you look at the 16:24 21 retraction? 22 A. Correct. 23 202 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The location for this was 24 that there was a general 25 election going on in 1957, it would appear, and the 16:24 26 candidate called to the house and he happened to be a 27 doctor apparently and "you better do something about 28 that. You better write in and complain", apparently is 29 the background from what one gathers. It culminates in 78 1 December with the retraction of the whole thing. I 2 agree, everything is possible? 3 A. And from the top of my head, it also appears that when 4 the boy himself was talking he said he had no memory at 5 all of anybody calling to the house. So I have no 16:24 6 doubt if there was a candidate around at the time who 7 was a doctor and something like that came in coming up 8 to an election it would have been reported. I'm saying 9 this isn't the most convincing retraction I have ever 10 seen but I haven't any more information than you have. 16:25 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is probably as 12 fair as -- Mr. Dowling 13 would be happy with that. 14 203 Q. MR. DOWLING: If you look at page 15 102. 16:25 16 This relates to the 17 celebrated case of the boy whose arm was broken and it 18 was raised in the Dail. This would be, if you like, an 19 example of what these days we call spin, I have to 20 suggest to you, by the Christian Brothers. It is: 16:25 21 "Boy wasn't beaten say teachers." 22 23 the article says: 24 "A boy in school for delinquents had his arm broken when he resisted a 25 beating. The Dail was told before it 16:25 broke up this week that teachers at the 26 school gave me a different version of what happened. Captain Paider Cowan 27 told the Dail that the boy, who was 14, resisting one of the Christian Brothers 28 at Artane Industrial School slapped his hands with the letter. They describe 29 the leather. 79 1 The boy, said Captain Cowan, grabbed the sweeping brush to resist the 2 punishment but was struck on the arm as two Brothers wrestled it from him. The 3 boy's mother, hearing of the mishap, tried to see the Superior but was not 4 allowed to see her until six days later. She told captain Cowan of the 5 incident. 16:26 6 When I visited the school yesterday, teachers told me the story had been 7 exaggerated. The boy was hurt when he attacked the Brother with a brush, they 8 said. Then he said there was an x-ray took place". 9 10 Again, just -- I mean, I think it is established that, 16:26 11 in fact, the boy's arm was broken by a Brother wielding 12 a brush and the Brother in question wrote a letter in 13 which he apologised profusely for it? 14 A. Yes. 15 204 Q. Again, isn't that a case of the institution presenting 16:26 16 to the outside world picture of what happened? 17 A. Yes. It is a case that whoever the journalist was 18 talking to, the Brother said that it didn't happen, but 19 they were incorrect it did, in fact. 20 205 Q. And they would have known they were incorrect? 16:26 21 A. Certainly, I'm not saying they were mistaken. They 22 knew what had happened, they were denying it. 23 206 Q. Again doesn't that response, I have to suggest to you, 24 somewhat undermine the idea that the Brothers were open 25 to complaints being made again them and they were 16:27 26 dealing with the complaints fairly? 27 A. First of all, you are using a very small sample by 28 which to come to a general finding, I would say, is the 29 first thing I would say in relation to that. A sample 80 1 one in this case. Secondly, I don't know who he was 2 talking to. I presume that if he was talking to the 3 Resident Manager he would have mentioned that. He said 4 teachers at the school. Now, I don't know who he was 5 talking to, but whoever he was talking to anyway didn't 16:27 6 tell them truth. 7 207 Q. Can I ask you to look at page 226 of the book and this 8 is a letter penned in 2002 in relation to -- obviously 9 it is about a specific Brother, I am trying to be as 10 careful as I can about this. This is in relation to a 16:27 11 specific Brother and, I think somebody -- I won't raise 12 the question: I hear there...(INTERJECTION). 13 A. I do know who the Brother is, yes. 14 208 Q. I hear there have been complaints against this person, 15 you know, can you give me any guidance in relation to 16:28 16 it? 17 A. Yes. 18 209 Q. I think Br. Mullen, is he your predecessor? 19 A. No, he was the Province Leader at the time. 20 210 Q. He says: 16:28 21 "In fairness to Blank I must point out that with extensive media coverage of 22 abuse allegations in this country over recent years it is almost inevitable 23 that any religious or lay person who served in an industrial school in years 24 past confine themselves named in civil proceedings and as respondents to the 25 Commission. 16:28 26 This, unfortunately, is the position that Blank finds himself in at the 27 present time. It must also be stated that Blank spent almost 30 years as a 28 teacher and school principal and record during this lengthy period of service 29 as a Brother is without complaint". 81 1 A. Yes. 2 211 Q. In that statement, would you be aware from the evidence 3 given during Phase II that that statement was incorrect 4 that was made at the time? 5 A. I wouldn't. I know who the person is, I know the 16:29 6 context of the letter, but I am not sure what you mean 7 by saying that. 8 212 Q. Isn't that person identified in the Visitation Reports 9 as being somebody who was overly strict with boys? 10 A. Yes. 16:29 11 213 Q. And that you don't think was regarded as a complaint, 12 it says: 13 "He was not subject of any complaint, but he was...", ...(INTERJECTION). 14 15 16:29 16 17 A. Yes, it is incorrect in that. 18 214 Q. It says that he was without complaint? 19 A. No, that's not all that it was about. Unfortunately, I 20 can't tell you, if you knew the context it was 16:29 21 different. This was a person who was applying for a 22 particular job, he was being denied the job because of 23 the fact that we had taken him out of the ministry 24 pending the results of investigation into allegations 25 that were made and they were allegations of physical 16:29 26 abuse. I am not sure, the only context I have is -- I 27 don't know who the addressee is, I don't know who the 28 letter was written to or that particular context. But 29 anyway, what is being said is here is a Brother against 82 1 whom allegations of physical abuse had been made, 2 probably this person that has written to or somebody 3 else, he was applying to them for a job and the Brother 4 is saying there are allegations against him in Artane, 5 he was 30 years as a principal in Northern Ireland and 16:30 6 there are no allegations against him and he is putting 7 that on record and saying essentially, which is what 8 happened, that until the thing is cleared up the person 9 shouldn't be given the job. 10 215 Q. So he's not talking about his time in Artane, he's 16:30 11 talking about his time in Northern Ireland? 12 A. Northern Ireland, yes. The difficulty with something 13 like that is what Br. Mullen would have done at the 14 time, he would have gone to his personnel file. He 15 wasn't going to read all the Visitation Reports and all 16:31 16 the documentation in which somebody's name might 17 appear. I think it would be highly unreasonable that 18 somebody would be expected in doing something like this 19 to do what would be a very extensive trawl and even if 20 he did, whether he would have found it or not I don't 16:31 21 know. 22 23 Though I think the reference I think was in 1958. The 24 difference between the two is I'm familiar with the 25 Visitation Reports now and I know what it is about and 16:31 26 I can refer to it, a lot of the time I will, but 27 Br. Mullen writing this would have gone to the 28 Brother's file and said there is nothing on file 29 against him here. But the upshot of it was that the 83 1 person didn't take the job because the recommendation 2 of the Congregation was wait until these matters are 3 cleared up. 4 MR. DOWLING: I am proposing handing 5 over 16:32 6 to Mr. McGrath at this 7 stage, if that's okay? 8 9 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. REYNOLDS BY MR. DOWLING 10 16:32 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's very good. How are 12 you doing, Br. Reynolds 13 would you like a break? Or are you happy, if you need 14 a break. 15 MR. HANRATTY: I think he might need 16:32 16 another jug of water. 17 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, if you are to 18 take a break for five 19 minutes, it might be no harm. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Br. Reynolds doesn't want 16:32 21 to break. The longer we 22 carry on, Mr. McGrath, the sooner we finish. If 23 Br. Reynolds wants a break, we'll give him a break. 24 That only applies to Brother Reynolds it doesn't apply 25 to any of the rest of us. Carry on. 16:33 26 27 BR. REYNOLDS WAS EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY MR. McGRATH 28 29 MR. McGRATH: I am afraid I am going to 84 1 go on to rather unexciting 2 things like the medical Visitation Reports and things 3 of that nature. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, please be 5 under no impression that 16:33 6 there is any rush or pressure on you, take as long as 7 you like. 8 A. Can I just ask, are we going to the end of this? 9 216 Q. MR. McGRATH: The books I have do not 10 correspond to my friend's 16:33 11 book. I will be doing exactly as I did this morning, I 12 will be using the folders that were given to us as 13 discovery by Artane and the Department of Education and 14 Science. 15 A. If there are Visitation Reports, just by way of help, I 16:33 16 have those with me and if they are I will be able to 17 find them reasonably quickly. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: You can put these books 19 away at any rate. 20 MR. McGRATH: You may well find the 16:33 21 documents in those books. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. We can put 23 these ones away. We may by 24 chance discover that they are in this one but this is 25 not the file you are going to refer to. 16:33 26 217 Q. MR. McGRATH: No, it is not. I want to 27 start with the record from 28 1939, it is headed "Artane Industrial School Report, 29 General Medical Inspection of Boys by Dr. McCabe, 85 1 November 1939". It is in the booklet, it is ART 2 0380-0003/1. 3 A. I haven't that with me, but however let's see. 4 218 Q. In that particular document, the form I have is a 5 redacted form, so on the left-hand side of the page 16:35 6 would be the names and then on the right-hand side are 7 notes detailing what are the various problems with the 8 various boys? 9 A. This is a handwritten report by Dr. McCabe? 10 219 Q. Yes, it is. It covers about 10 to, nearly, 20 pages or 16:35 11 so, maybe more, in relation to the various things. 12 There is a couple of things that I am just going to put 13 to you arising out of it. The first thing is she 14 describes in that report, and I have counted and I hope 15 I have the figure right, 102 boys are noted in that 16:36 16 report as nail biters. Now, would that suggest to you 17 that there were, at least at the time of that 18 inspection, 102 boys in the school who had some form of 19 nervous situation which caused them to bite nails, it 20 is not a normal thing that you would expect? 16:36 21 A. I think you should be addressing that to Mr. Lowe, to 22 be honest with you. I have no idea. 23 220 Q. If you were told there were 102 boys who were nail 24 biters, what would that make you think, anything at 25 all? 16:36 26 A. I certainly wouldn't jump to any conclusions about it, 27 I must confess. 28 221 Q. What would you think if in that particular report over 29 200 boys were noted to have holed in their teeth, some 86 1 of them up to five holes in their teeth. Would that 2 suggest that there was something wrong with the medical 3 care? 4 A. It may and I will tell you what the difficulty with 5 that is, how many of those were new entrants, how long 16:37 6 were they there? I mean to quote a figure like that, 7 out of a figure of what at the time was about 800, how 8 often the dentist was there. My understanding is that 9 a dentist called there reasonably regularly. Again, 10 unfortunately I haven't any expertise in dental 16:37 11 cavities, so I can't jump to major conclusions as to 12 numbers, I have nothing to compare them with. All I 13 can say is that the practically every report, I have it 14 in front of me, from Dr. McCabe in relation to Artane 15 begins with a sentence similar to Artane is a very well 16:37 16 run institution. 17 222 Q. Now, are there not also documents which indicate that 18 there were problems with the dental care there? 19 A. Oh there may be -- I know that there 20 are...(INTERJECTION). 16:38 21 223 Q. In fact, when you look at what are the quarterly 22 medical return, I am talking these are at ART 0388021, 23 and going on for a number of pages? 24 A. Yes. 25 224 Q. These deal with 1961, the various times in 1961, 1962 16:38 26 and through the early 1960's. You have, in those 27 reports, a situation where treatment for dental care 28 during the quarter you had 98 children had their dental 29 treatment by extraction, you had 18 by filling. Now 87 1 that seems an incredibly high number of teeth, and 2 that's only in the first quarter, the quarter ended 30 3 September 1961. If you go on to the following ones. 4 MR. HANRATTY: I wonder if I might just 5 briefly interrupt, my 16:38 6 friend has...(INTERJECTION). 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the question, 8 Mr. McGrath. 9 MR. McGRATH: I'm asking about 10 the...(INTERJECTION). 16:38 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, but what's the 12 question. I know the 13 reality and I see the difficulty. 14 MR. McGRATH: The question I am asking is 15 does this witness accept 16:39 16 that there was a deficiency in terms of the dental care 17 that was in the school, very simple, on the basis of 18 the document? 19 MR. HANRATTY: Just in relation to the 20 documents, the witness 16:39 21 doesn't have these documents. This is a book of Artane 22 discovery and I wonder does anybody in the room have a 23 spare book. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the difficulty. 25 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, if you want I 16:39 26 will leave this over to the 27 morning. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, we'll do it this 29 evening, Mr. McGrath. But 88 1 this is the problem, not of our making, this 2 Mr. McGrath's making because I mean he's disabled from 3 being able to answer you by you not having a book that 4 you can give him, Mr. McGrath. I mean, we have, I 5 don't know how many thousand or hundred thousand 16:39 6 documents, but there no point in saying that we could 7 have a wall full and be simply able to pull them out 8 instantly. That is the reality. Do you have 9 this...(INTERJECTION) 10 MR. MacMAHON: I may be able to assist 16:39 11 with the book, it is 12 general discovery folder 1, I can provide my own copy 13 for the moment. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't that be a good 15 idea? 16:40 16 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, this is a 17 situation where those of us 18 who are here to do this have to deal with the documents 19 that we have been supplied on discovery. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course. 16:40 21 MR. McGRATH: In those 22 circumstances 23 ...(INTERJECTION). 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you selected those 25 documents. 16:40 26 MR. McGRATH: I selected those documents 27 over reading these 28 documents over the last five or six days. I have read 29 thousands of documents since last week on two 89 1 institutions. That takes an awful lot of time for 2 anyone to do. I am sorry but it is not part of my 3 brief to have to prepare somebody else's witnesses for 4 whatever examination I have to do. These are the 5 documents that were supplied to me. 16:40 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm not getting into a 7 debate, Mr. McGrath. 8 MR. McGRATH: From that point of 9 view...(INTERJECTION). 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't agree but I am not 16:40 11 getting into a debate. 12 MR. McGRATH: Those documents that I 13 dealt with this morning 14 were all in the booklets supplied to me and they were 15 available this morning. So I don't understand why they 16:40 16 are not available this afternoon. 17 225 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now, your 18 question, Br. Reynolds, is 19 does he agree that there were problems with dental 20 care? 16:41 21 A. First of all, my question is since now -- thank you 22 very much, I have a copy of the book. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Based on which of 24 Dr. McCabe's reports, 25 Mr. McGrath? 16:41 26 MR. McGRATH: Down at the bottom, please. 27 I started 28 with...(INTERJECTION). 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which one are you on now? 90 1 A. Go on to the one you are on now, please. 2 MR. McGRATH: I started with ART 3 0380-003/2. That's the 4 document I started with and if the witness wants to see 5 what I was referring to it is all contained in that 16:41 6 document, the first thing I asked him about. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, why are we 8 having this difficulty. We 9 just want to know -- the question was: Do they have 10 problems with dental care? All I am asking is what 16:41 11 document are you referring to? 12 MR. McGRATH: The first document I 13 referred to in respect of 14 that was the 1939 reports. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which one are you now 16:42 16 referring to. 17 MR. McGRATH: I moved on. I moved on 18 to...(INTERJECTION) 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's the one I want to 20 know. 16:42 21 MR. McGRATH: I am on document ART 22 0388-003/2. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: What date is that? 24 MR. McGRATH: That is January 1962 -- 25 sorry, 31st September 1961. 16:42 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 27 A. My book runs out at 0383 unfortunately. Mr. MacMahon, 28 I am going to trouble you again. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: What does that say, 91 1 Mr. McGrath? What bit are 2 you referring to there. 3 226 Q. MR. McGRATH: This is the third of the 4 quarterly returns, this one 5 on the second page of the quarterly return suggests 16:42 6 that: 7 "Treated for dental caries during the quarter by extraction 50, by fillings 8 16". 9 10 So in that short period between September 1961 we have 16:43 11 98 by extraction, 18 by filling; the following one, 12 September 1961 we have 50 by extraction and 15 by 13 fillings. The quarter ended 31st March 1962, we have 14 57 extractions, 14 fillings. It seems to be a very 15 serious problem? 16:43 16 A. The difficulty is that you are making a cause and 17 effect connection that I am not 100% sure you are 18 entitled to make. If somebody arrives in Artane and 19 finds out that there is a problem with teeth, are you 20 suggesting that that problem lies with Artane? 16:43 21 227 Q. If you look in those particular documents and you talk 22 about the number of children who have been admitted and 23 they say that there are ten that have been admitted 24 with dental caries, the number of pupils in school with 25 dental caries, 36. That is an internal problem, the 16:43 26 ten might not, but the other 36 would be? 27 A. Admitted that year with dental carries. 28 228 Q. If you go back to the previous one, the number of 29 children admitted 16, number of pupils in school, 30. 92 1 The figures are still very, very high in the school; is 2 that fair? 3 A. By comparison with what? The figures are very high in 4 comparison with what? What figures of the general 5 population are you comparing it to exactly, is what I 16:44 6 am asking you? 7 229 Q. I am working on the basis of the documentation that you 8 have supplied to us, which would suggest that there is 9 a very high number of people with problems in the 10 school? 16:44 11 A. In comparison to what, Mr. McGrath? 12 230 Q. On the basis of those figures? 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well what should it be? 14 MR. McGRATH: I don't know. I don't 15 know, I'm not a dentist. 16:44 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Then you can't say it is 17 high. 18 MR. McGRATH: All right. I will move on 19 to another question arising 20 out of the same thing. If you just give me a moment. 16:44 21 22 (PAUSE) 23 24 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, I can't 25 find the page I am looking 16:46 26 for. Can I ask you to rise for a couple of minutes 27 until I get this sorted out? 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to go on to 29 something else and then 93 1 come back to it, Mr. McGrath? It is a bit of a 2 nuisance. 3 MR. McGRATH: I would rather get rid of 4 it, if I can. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is going to take us 20 16:46 6 minutes to reassemble now. 7 MR. McGRATH: Well we have all week to 8 deal with these 9 institutions, Chairman, I don't see it being a major 10 problem. 16:46 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good, Mr. McGrath. 12 Very good. I am certainly 13 not happy with that. 14 15 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 16:46 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 94 1 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 5:00 P.M. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 95