COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON WEDNESDAY, 31ST MAY 2006 - DAY 222 EVIDENCE OF SR. UNA O'NEILL 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: MS. K. FERGUS BL MS. C. McGOLDRICK BL Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE SISTERS OF CHARITY: MR. N. BUTLER SC Instructed by: ARTHUR COX MR. J. MAHER SC Instructed by: MICHAEL LANNIGAN 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. SR. O'NEILL QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 7 EXAMINED - MS. MAHER 8 - 252 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 253 - 327 EXAMINED - MR. BUTLER 328 - 357 FUTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 358 - 376 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON WEDNESDAY, 31ST MAY 2 2006: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 5 MS. McGOLDRICK: God morning, Chairman. 10:30 6 This is the Phase III 7 public hearing in relation to St. Joseph's Industrial 8 School in Kilkenny. This morning we are hearing the 9 evidence of Sister Una O'Neill, who is Superior General 10 of the Order. 10:30 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Sr. O'Neill. 12 Just before we start, 13 Ms. McGoldrick, I should mention that we are also 14 having a Phase III hearing for St. Patrick's, Kilkenny 15 but we are not going to have any hearings into 10:31 16 St. Patrick's today, we will do that tomorrow. We 17 anticipate that St. Joseph's will finish today but we 18 won't start on St. Patrick's until tomorrow. 19 20 SR. UNA O'NEILL, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED, AS 10:31 21 FOLLOWS, BY THE COMMISSION: 22 23 1 Q. MS. McGOLDRICK: Good morning, Sr. Una. I 24 think you are the Superior 25 General of the Sisters of Charity in Ireland; is that 10:31 26 correct? 27 A. That's right. 28 2 Q. How long have you held that position? 29 A. For 11 years now. 4 1 3 Q. I think you gave evidence in relation to Phase I on 2 St. Joseph's school on 1st November 2005? 3 A. Yes. 4 4 Q. After that we had 25 hearings in relation to -- in 5 Phase II, five of whom were people who made complaints 10:32 6 about the school? 7 A. Yes. 8 5 Q. Two were individuals who had positive experiences of 9 their time as a resident in the school? 10 A. Yes. 10:32 11 6 Q. And the remainder were a combination of Sisters who 12 were resident in the school, lay workers and volunteers 13 who spent time there? 14 A. Yes. 15 7 Q. Did you attend all those hearings? 10:32 16 A. I did, yes. 17 MS. McGOLDRICK: They are the questions I 18 have for the moment. 19 Mr. Jeremy Maher, instructed by Michael Lannigan will 20 ask you questions next. I will follow with some 10:32 21 questions and then your own counsel Mr. Nick Butler, 22 instructed by Arthur Cox will have some questions for 23 you. 24 A. Thank you. 25 10:32 26 END OF QUESTIONING OF SR. O'NEILL BY THE COMMISSION 27 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now, Mr. Maher. 29 MR. MAHER: Thank you very much, 5 1 Chairman. 2 3 SR. UNA O'NEILL WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 4 MR. MAHER 5 10:32 6 MR. MAHER: Good morning, Sister. 7 A. Good morning. 8 8 Q. Firstly, I just want to ask you some questions which 9 touch upon the general tenor of the evidence which you 10 have given already to the Commission and indeed in the 10:32 11 context of the statement of your proposed evidence. 12 A. Yes. 13 9 Q. So just, if you don't mind, we will start generally 14 first. 15 A. Yes. 10:33 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Maher, just before you 17 do that. You will find a 18 button on the microphone in front of you and a red 19 light will show if you press that and then everybody 20 can hear you. I can hear you all right but I am sure 10:33 21 nobody else can. That's all right. 22 MR. MAHER: Thank you, Chairman. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: What you were saying was 24 you were going to ask some 25 general questions in the first place. 10:33 26 MR. MAHER: Yes. Can you hear me, 27 Sister? 28 A. I can, yes, indeed. 29 10 Q. One of the expressions that you use in your evidence, 6 1 and indeed in the statement which preceded your 2 evidence, was that the school in question was an 3 artificial construct. I am just wondering what exactly 4 do you mean by that concept? 5 A. In various ways St. Joseph's, as all Industrial Schools 10:33 6 or orphanages were indeed, were referred to as 7 institutions, they were referred to as schools, they 8 were referred to as homes. Now, in the final analysis 9 I am not sure they were any of those things. I think 10 they were an amalgam of all three. In that sense, I 10:34 11 mean it was an artifical construct. It wasn't a home 12 in the way in which we understand it, although the 13 Sisters did everything possible to make it into a home. 14 15 It wasn't a school in the sense that we understand it 10:34 16 like a boarding school because the children didn't have 17 families in many case to whom they could go home, they 18 were committed from the courts. 19 20 And it wasn't an institution only, in the sense that it 10:34 21 was the other elements of home and education were part 22 of what was in St. Joseph's. I think that's what I 23 meant. 24 11 Q. I see. So you are saying that it would be, in a sense, 25 artificial to compare it to a family situation? 10:34 26 A. Indeed I would, yes. Though having said that, I would 27 also maintain at this stage, listening to all the 28 evidence that was in the first and second phases, I 29 would have to say that St. Joseph's maybe stand out in 7 1 some sense in its efforts to turn the institution, the 2 school, into a home insofar as that was humanly 3 possible. Often without much support from the 4 Government agencies, I would add. 5 12 Q. Yes. But insofar as you say that it would be 10:35 6 artificial to compare it with a family? 7 A. Yes. 8 13 Q. Is it not the case that in your evidence to the 9 Commission, which I think you gave on the 1st November 10 2005, and in particular at page 149, that you thought 10:35 11 -- I will just give you an opportunity to find that. 12 A. Is that in the proposed evidence or in the transcript? 13 14 Q. No, that's in the actual transcript of your evidence. 14 A. Page? 15 15 Q. 149. 10:36 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you mind quoting the 17 passage that you are 18 referring to. 19 16 Q. MR. MAHER: Yes. It is the very top 20 of page 149 and you say, 10:36 21 Sister, in fact, I will go back a little bit to be fair 22 to you, the bottom of page 148. 23 "In terms of us reconciling it, I myself have struggled for ten years to 24 try and understand this and try to understand both realities and the only 25 comparison I can make is that to an 10:36 ordinary family." 26 27 28 A. Yes. 29 17 Q. 8 1 "Which can, in many instances, be an extremely happy positive place for 2 children to grow up in. At the same time you can have terrible abuse going 3 on within the same family". 4 A. Yes, I don't see any conflict between that and what I'm 5 saying. Because, in fact, that is what I would see 10:36 6 happened in St. Joseph's, that in many elements you 7 could compare it to a family, in many elements you 8 couldn't compare it to a family. But it was a family, 9 a huge family in many of the elements of its daily 10 life. And so what I am saying there is that if you 10:37 11 take a small family and a child can be abused by an 12 uncle or an aunt or whoever, and that can go on and the 13 parents don't know about it, how much more so can that 14 go on in an institution where you have so many children 15 and so few carers. That was the comparison I was 10:37 16 making. 17 18 Q. I understand that comparison, but I am going to put it 18 to you that the ordinary family wouldn't include an 19 aspect which involved abuse both physical and sexual of 20 the type that we have seen in St. Joseph's in Kilkenny? 10:37 21 A. Indeed, I would hope it wouldn't. But that would be 22 precisely where the difference would lie. You have a 23 huge institution, you have shortage of staff, you have 24 financial restrictions, you have people trying to make 25 the place as homely as possible for the children. You 10:37 26 have the day-to-day running of that institution, which 27 involved in its later stages houses that were out many 28 in community. In its earlier days you had it on the -- 29 when the abuse was occurring, of the boys particularly, 9 1 you had them housed over in a separate unit, the 2 institution itself was divided into different units. 3 So I think one can take elements and compare them in 4 the way I have done and I don't think it is -- what 5 would I say, I don't think it is unreal of me to do so. 10:38 6 19 Q. Again in the -- sorry, in the proposed evidence which 7 you give and you gave evidence in respect of this, you 8 said that "preadmission trauma"? 9 A. Yes. 10 20 Q. 10:38 11 "Preadmission trauma had led to severe behavioural and emotional difficulties 12 and problems". 13 A. That's true. 14 21 Q. I am just wondering where's the evidence for that, 15 Sister? 10:38 16 A. Well, if you were at the private hearings you would 17 have heard the evidence of it. I don't know if I can 18 mention this, but only five of the ladies came to the 19 Commission finally, I think the majority of those, if 20 you listened to their stories and certainly in relation 10:39 21 to St. Patrick, if you listened to the stories of what 22 went on prior to them coming in, the anguish of those 23 people as they spoke about their separation from their 24 families. You know, a father who had a number of 25 children marrying another woman after their mother had 10:39 26 died and then taking her seven children and putting his 27 own away. It is there. 28 22 Q. You are saying basically it is the evidence that was 29 given in private? 10 1 A. No, not only. I am also saying it is in the records 2 there of the children, well in the later stages. 3 23 Q. When exactly? 4 A. I would say probably from the 1970's on, it was very 5 difficult to get information. Can I just say, in 10:39 6 speaking with the past residents, as lately as last 7 Sunday where we had a reunion in St. Joseph's, and even 8 speaking to them day, last Sunday, some of them spoke 9 to me about what happened to them before they come in. 10 It has been in the public papers, one or two or three 10:40 11 children, more than three, have gone on public record 12 about their family circumstances prior to coming in. 13 So we do know it and that evidence can be adduced to 14 the Commission if they need it. 15 24 Q. Are you suggesting therefore that it was in the main 10:40 16 preadmission trauma which led to the severe behavioural 17 and emotional difficulties and problems which were 18 faced by the children? 19 A. No, I couldn't make a general statement like that. I 20 would need to look at each child and each child's 10:40 21 record and see how the disturbance would have 22 developed. I couldn't say that, no. 23 25 Q. Because is it not the case that no psychological or 24 psychiatric assessment was normally made of a child 25 before they entered into the institution? 10:40 26 A. That would certainly be true. I am not sure now if in 27 the 1980's or 1990's there would have been the 28 involvement of psychiatrists and social workers. There 29 wouldn't, no, not in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's there 11 1 would have been no assessment, that I know of, made. 2 26 Q. 1950's, 1960's or 1970's? 3 A. I wouldn't be certain of dates now, I am sorry. I 4 doubt in the 1970's either. No, I doubt in the 1970's. 5 27 Q. What I am wondering in this case is how you can say to 10:41 6 the Commission that preadmission trauma was what led to 7 severe behavioural and emotional problems and how can 8 the Commission be certain that it wasn't trauma that 9 occurred to the children when they were in the school? 10 A. Could you give the reference to that and I might be 10:41 11 able to answer it? 12 28 Q. Page 111 of the proposed statement? 13 A. Oh, that's in the general summary. 14 29 Q. Yes. 15 A. Where is it exactly, please? 10:41 16 30 Q. "In the 1980's", paragraph two, do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 31 Q. "In the 1980's and 1990's"? 19 A. 113, is it? 20 32 Q. 111? 10:42 21 A. Oh, I beg your pardon. Yes. 22 33 Q. I will just read it out for you: 23 "In the 1980's and 1990's the nature and degree of trauma suffered by the 24 children prior to admission led to severe behavioural and emotional 25 difficulties". 10:42 26 A. Yes, I would say that's true of the 1980's and 1990's 27 and I would say that we have evidence of that in 28 individual records. Certainly, in the daily diaries 29 for that time, they go into great detail in relation to 12 1 the state of mind and heart of those children in the 2 1980's and 1990's. 3 4 If you look at the records and if you read the records 5 of those children and you read the daily diaries they 10:42 6 are very, very minute in their daily detail of what 7 went on in discussions with psychiatrists, social 8 workers. And in many cases you will find that there is 9 a lot of interaction with the families, but that the 10 children come back from the families more disturbed 10:43 11 than when they go home. That's in the diaries so we do 12 have evidence of that. 13 34 Q. I am trying to analyse what you are saying. You are 14 drawing a distinction between the 1950's, 1960's and 15 1970's and the 1980's and 1990's? 10:43 16 A. In terms of evidence, yes. 17 35 Q. Dr. Paul McQuade, I think, Sister, and if you disagree, 18 feel free to disagree, he would have been regarded in 19 the 1970's as perhaps the preeminent child psychiatrist 20 in this country? 10:43 21 A. Well, certainly he would have been very well thought 22 of, yes. 23 36 Q. I think you are aware of the fact that he wrote to the 24 Resident Manager concerning certain matters which were 25 causing him to be worried about the children; is that 10:43 26 correct? 27 A. That's right, yes. 28 37 Q. I will just get the reference to that. Yes, it is a 29 letter of 12th December 1973 and it is in the 13 1 Department of Education's discovery, folder 1. DEJK 2 059-124/1. I might just repeat that, that's DEJK 3 059-124/1. 4 A. Do you have any idea where it is in my evidence? I am 5 sorry, it is just that I can't...(INTERJECTION) 10:44 6 38 Q. Page 88. 7 A. 88. Oh, yes I have it actually open. 8 39 Q. I just want to ask you about that letter? 9 A. Of course. 10 40 Q. Do the Commission have that? This letter, do you have 10:44 11 it, Sister? 12 A. I don't actually have the letter, I have it somewhere 13 but I don't know where it is. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Take your time, don't 15 worry. 10:45 16 41 Q. MR. MAHER: I think it is dealt with at 17 page 88 of 18 your...(INTERJECTION). 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can we just make sure that 20 Sr. O'Neill has a copy of 10:45 21 it or can you refer her to where it is. 22 A. Was it in the file that -- Mr. Lannigan's file? 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it in the documents? I 24 know what Mr. Lannigan is 25 saying where it is, I know it is in the Department of 10:45 26 Education discovery but is it in the file of documents 27 that is Mr. Lannigan gave us to be given to Sister Una? 28 MR. MAHER: It is. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Can we locate 14 1 it there? 2 A. Is it in the first, under the pink? 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: In which of the tabs is it? 4 MR. MAHER: I will have to ask 5 Ms. McGoldrick to assist. 10:45 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will just flick through 7 it until we find it. 8 MR. MAHER: It is not actually in that 9 booklet. I am sorry about 10 that. 10:46 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr. Maher, I think 12 sensible thing to 13 do...(INTERJECTION) 14 A. Maybe somebody else will have it for me. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Leave this to me. Let me 10:46 16 make a suggestion first and 17 then we will see if everyone agrees with it. If you 18 have a look at the document, take a second to look at 19 it. If you are comfortable discussing it with 20 Mr. Maher, well and good we simply proceed without more 10:46 21 ado. If not, we will ask Mr. Maher to leave it for the 22 moment and we will come back to it, having given her an 23 opportunity of thinking about it. I think that's the 24 sensible way of dealing with it. 25 A. Yes, I am fine. Thank you. 10:46 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now Mr. Maher. 27 Do you want to put that up 28 on the screen? 29 MR. MAHER: I have given my copy to the 15 1 Sister. We will find 2 another copy. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't have a problem 4 about somebody being named, 5 I take it, in this instance. 10:47 6 A. Certain Sisters are named in it. But it is 7 not...(INTERJECTION). 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not anything to do 9 with abuse or anything like 10 that, or any allegation. 10:47 11 A. No, not at all. 12 42 Q. MR. MAHER: I am not sure that everyone 13 will be able to read that. 14 It is a letter from Dr. Paul McQuade dated 12th 15 December 1973; isn't that correct? 10:47 16 A. Yes, it is. 17 43 Q. It is addressed to Reverend Mother Conception, who is 18 Sr. Joseph Conception, who was Resident Manager I think 19 between 1972 and 1985; is that correct? 20 A. I will just check it. I am sure it is. December 1972 10:48 21 to December 1985, yes. 22 44 Q. This letter records the fact that at that time there 23 were 80 children in the care of St. Joseph's in 24 Kilkenny; isn't that correct? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. 10:48 26 45 Q. Of those 80, I think that 32 were disturbed; isn't that 27 correct? 28 A. That's correct, yes. 29 46 Q. I will read out exactly what Dr. McQuade says, he says: 16 1 "We estimate that out of the 80 children in your care there are 12 2 seriously disturbed, six boy and six girls, and another 20 children who are 3 sufficiently disturbed to be obvious and of these 17 are boys. This means 4 that somewhat less than half of your children are emotionally disturbed or 5 seriously behaviorally disorganised." 10:49 6 7 8 A. Yes. 9 47 Q. Then he sets out the breakdown of the children between 10 the different groups. I will just draw your attention 10:49 11 to the very last paragraph: 12 "I think that these figures are sufficiently serious to warrant 13 immediate discussion with your staff and the Congregation as to what should 14 be done to remedy the situation. 15 I would suggest that perhaps you get," 10:49 then we go to the next page, "in touch 16 as soon as possible with the Department of Education to bring to their 17 attention the figures and to discuss with them the implications for 18 extension of your services." 19 20 Then he says: 10:49 21 "It seems likely that if adequate provisions are not made for these 22 children that they will emerge in late adolescence as problems to the 23 community and you have had a number of experiences of this kind in the shape 24 of, etc. 25 I should be pleased to hear how your 10:49 thinking proceeds on this matter and I 26 assume that you will let me know if I can be of further assistance in this 27 matter". 28 29 A. Yes. 17 1 48 Q. What I am wondering about that letter, Sister, is that 2 it doesn't suggest on the face of it, at least, that 3 this was disturbance that predated these children's 4 admission to St. Joseph's? 5 A. It doesn't suggest the opposite either. 10:50 6 49 Q. I see. Well, is there any evidence to suggest that 7 these children to whom Dr. McQuade refers were 8 disturbed prior to their admission to St. Joseph's? 9 A. I would have to go back to the files and look at those, 10 I couldn't answer that just off the top of my head. I 10:50 11 do know that Dr. Birch got involved in that and wrote a 12 letter. Indeed, so too did a member -- a person who 13 was doing voluntary work in St. Joseph's, wrote to the 14 Department expressing great concern about the children 15 who were being admitted and the fact that they were 10:50 16 disturbed and traumatised. Now I can't get the 17 reference immediately. 18 50 Q. I am sure your counsel will be able to get that for the 19 Commission? 20 A. Yes. 10:51 21 51 Q. There was a suggestion there that you -- or not you 22 obviously, but Sr. Joseph Conception, that this was 23 such sufficiently serious to warrant discussion with 24 the staff and to warrant discussion with the 25 Congregation? 10:51 26 A. Yes. 27 52 Q. Can you tell the Commission was that taken up, did such 28 discussion take place? 29 A. I have no evidence to say that it was or wasn't. 18 1 53 Q. I see. Is there any evidence to suggest that the 2 Department of Education were contacted as suggested by 3 Dr. McQuade? 4 A. And there is no evidence to suggest they weren't. 5 54 Q. Is there any evidence to suggest...(INTERJECTION)? 10:51 6 55 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: You would expect, Sister, 7 records to be kept? 8 A. I would. 9 56 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If Sr. Conception was 10 having meetings with 10:51 11 somebody surely we are not entirely neutral on it, in a 12 well ordered organisation there would be a paper trail. 13 "Met such and such today." Is it good enough to say, 14 "Well, maybe is it, and maybe it isn't"? 15 A. Well I think that...(INTERJECTION). 10:52 16 57 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If there is no paper there, 17 if there is no record 18 surely the only safe assumption is that it didn't 19 happen? 20 A. Now, given my experience of reading through all the 10:52 21 records I don't think I could agree with you on that. I 22 mean there are huge gaps where you expect something to 23 be written and then there are things written that you 24 wonder why they were written at all. I am not 25 disagreeing with you. Now, looking back on it, one 10:52 26 should have kept a complete record of every single 27 thing that happened. I wonder if we went back to the 28 children's files, for instance, would we find that 29 individual help was given. I know there was great 19 1 discussion about the need for tutors, a need for the 2 children to be helped to settle into St. Joseph's 3 before they were sent out to new schools. I know all 4 of that took place. I just don't 5 know...(INTERJECTION). 10:52 6 58 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Am I misunderstanding this, 7 or is there an implicit 8 threat in Dr. McQuade's letter, because he says discuss 9 with the Department of Education, blah blah blah, "the 10 implication for extension of your services". If I got 10:53 11 that letter I would be a little worries? 12 A. Indeed, as would I. 13 MR. MAHER: Chairman, I should say, 14 before Mr. Butler says, he 15 has kindly brought to my attention, that there is a 10:53 16 letter -- it is not a letter, it is a memo which is to 17 be found in the Department of Education discovery at 18 DEJK 059-131 and it says: 19 "Visit to Kilkenny. PO McHugh," I think, "PO and I visited as follows on 20 29/4/1974." 21 22 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: 1974. 24 MR. MAHER: 25 "1. St. Joseph's residential home. we 26 were shown over the home and also over the group homes outside the main site 27 by Sr. Joseph Conception, manager. In particular we discussed with her the 28 problem of emotionally disturbed children in the home. Her need in this 29 regard is for part time teaching help in evenings to supervise study. 20 1 The difficulty here is in making any 2 special payment outside the capitation grant. The matter would be one of 3 employing additional part time help different in principle from any other 4 staff employment. 5 It would be useful to discuss the 10:54 general problem with Dr. McQuade. The 6 VC might be approached to see if they could help." 7 8 I am not sure. It is probably: 9 "The VEC might be approached to see if they could help". 10 10:54 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: In fairness this is a 12 letter that Sr. O'Neill 13 hadn't seen. 14 A. No, I have seen it. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: So she hasn't had an 10:55 16 opportunity of trawling 17 through and excavating. So we have to bear that in 18 mind and this is a good example of how one shouldn't 19 jump to conclusions. Thank you very much. 20 59 Q. MR. MAHER: Sister, apart from that, 10:55 21 which would seem to suggest 22 that the Department of Education were contacted, is 23 there any other indication in the papers that there was 24 any follow-up given to the suggestions of Dr. McQuade? 25 A. If I had known you were going to ask that question I 10:55 26 could have pursued an answer, in objective fact. Just 27 off the top of my head I can't, sorry. 28 60 Q. Would it be fair to the Sister, if I came back to it at 29 the end to give her an opportunity to deal with it? 21 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr. Maher, my 2 suggestion is this, that if 3 Sr. O'Neill wants to revisit this, having excavated 4 whatever documents are there, look through it, that 5 Mr. Moore can write in to us with a response, if it is 10:56 6 appropriate and necessary we will communicate with 7 Mr. Lannigan to see if there is a rebutter or a 8 surrebutter, or whatever it is, called for. But in 9 circumstances where something hadn't been flagged, 10 there is a lot of information which you have flagged 10:56 11 and we would expect obviously Sr. O'Neill to have 12 familiarised herself with the documents that you have 13 flagged. It is not that it is impossible to discuss it 14 but it creates a certain difficulty and I think we have 15 just seen one of the possibilities for an assumption 10:56 16 that wouldn't be warranted when one talks about it. 17 18 Anyway, it is clearly an important letter and we would 19 certainly welcome any extra information that's there 20 and thank you for drawing our attention to it, 10:57 21 Mr. Maher. 22 61 Q. MR. MAHER: Sister, if I pass then from 23 for the moment. I am still 24 dealing here with your general remarks in the case. 25 Would it be fair to characterise the thrust of your 10:57 26 evidence to the Commission as a denial that religious 27 women were the perpetrators of abuse? 28 A. Are you talking about my own Congregation, Sisters? 29 62 Q. Yes. 22 1 A. Oh, yes, absolutely. 2 63 Q. And a denial that they were colluders in abuse? 3 A. Absolutely. 4 64 Q. In other words, there was no question here of a cover 5 up? 10:57 6 A. Absolutely not. 7 65 Q. Your evidence, can I suggest to you, is characterised 8 by an expression of sorrow and regret for what occurred 9 in St. Joseph's, Kilkenny? 10 A. Indeed those two words wouldn't even describe what the 10:58 11 experience has been of this unfolding of abuse in 12 St. Joseph's for the Sisters who were there at the 13 time. 14 66 Q. Yes. Is there a distinction to be drawn between your 15 expression of sorrow and regret and the absence of the 10:58 16 use of the word "apologise"? 17 A. I think from the very beginning the relationship 18 between the Congregation and St. Joseph's has been of 19 paramount importance to us. When all of this knowledge 20 of abuse began to unfold and emerge our primary thrust, 10:58 21 apart from the legal angle of it, was to try and 22 maintain our relationship with the children. Now, we 23 have to managed to -- I am using "we" in the -- we have 24 managed to do that even though at times their legal 25 advisors would have warned them or advised them not to 10:59 26 keep in contact, especially with Sr. Conception, 27 because it might compromise their cases. 28 29 I have only to refer to the reunion last Sunday where 23 1 one of the men who had a case in the High Court was 2 there with his partner, the children, the relationship 3 with Sr. Conception, with the rest of us, with the 4 other children was as it had been. For that I am most 5 grateful and that, I think, is where -- I have spoken 10:59 6 to any child, any past resident who approached me, we 7 have facilitated every past resident who requested to 8 meet with any Sister who was there at the time and that 9 has been the thrust of our way of dealing with the 10 situation. 10:59 11 12 When the people were convicted of abuse we did give a 13 public expression of regret. But we have pursued it at 14 a personal level rather than at a public media level, 15 tried to. We have not succeeded in all cases. 11:00 16 67 Q. I will come back to my original question. 17 A. Yes. 18 68 Q. Which is: Is there a distinction to be drawn between 19 expressions of regret and sorrow and the concept of an 20 apology? 11:00 21 A. Are you asking a legal question? 22 69 Q. I am asking you to answer the question. 23 A. I don't understand it. 24 70 Q. Are you going express an apology to the victims of 25 child physical and sexual abuse in St. Joseph's in 11:00 26 Kilkenny? 27 A. If an apology were in anyway to link us with the David 28 Murrays and Myles Bradys of this world then in no way 29 would an apology be given. And that, I think, creates 24 1 a dilemma for us, in the sense that what's the 2 difference between saying that we are deeply sorry for 3 what happened to our lads and saying we -- whatever, 4 using more formal legal language. A parent whose child 5 has been abused would not say "I apologise", he would 11:01 6 cry with the child and say he was sorry that this 7 happened. I am not sure I understand the distinction 8 you are making. 9 71 Q. One of the other thrusts of your evidence is that for 10 the Sisters involved and for the Congregation it was, I 11:01 11 think your expression was, an incredulous experience to 12 discover of the abuse? 13 A. Incredible I think I would have said. Maybe it was 14 written wrongly. It was. 15 72 Q. And that you had reposed your trust in the male staff? 11:01 16 A. Indeed we did. 17 73 Q. And that you had relied upon them particularly because 18 they had been trained and vetted by professionals? 19 A. Yes. 20 74 Q. So isn't that suggesting to the Commission that the 11:02 21 Sisters of Charity can't be held to blame for what the 22 childcare workers did, but some others should? In 23 other words the persons who vetted or trained them? 24 A. But, you see, this whole question of vetting, if I were 25 to go out in the morning and vet people to be employed 11:02 26 in my school I can get a Garda check, I can do all the 27 vetting in the world and it won't -- the person's not 28 going say "I'm a pedophile". Vetting has limited 29 ability to discover the inclinations of people to abuse 25 1 children, I would respectfully suggest to you. I am 2 not sure I hold accountable for the abuse the people 3 who abused (sic). 4 5 Certainly there were failures, there were system 11:03 6 failures, there were failures on everyone's part, if 7 you want to call them failures. But I certainly would 8 hold responsible the people who abused the children. I 9 would have to say that listening in both the private 10 hearings and at the court cases, the amount of conflict 11:03 11 of evidence, the amount of different memories of what 12 happened, who said what, who understood what, I still 13 haven't sorted. I have no answer to say other than 14 that these people abused the children. 15 75 Q. Do you accept that? 11:03 16 A. But sure we always accepted that. Of course they did 17 abuse the children, they have been convicted in court. 18 76 Q. Do you accept the findings of fact that have been made 19 by the various judges of the High Court in relation to 20 residents of your institution? 11:03 21 A. Which facts now are you talking about? 22 77 Q. Sister, you know that there have been three cases? 23 A. That's right. 24 78 Q. There is the case of Martin Delahunty, there is the 25 case of David Connellan? 11:03 26 A. That's right. 27 79 Q. And there is the case of Raymond Noctor? 28 A. Yes. 29 80 Q. In each of those cases the judges made findings of fact 26 1 in relation to abuse? 2 A. They made a lot of findings, yes, they did. 3 81 Q. Do you accept those findings? 4 A. I would need to reread those. I would obviously accept 5 whatever the judges finding were. Even within that, I 11:04 6 attended only one of them fully, I think. I attended a 7 second one most of the time, the third one I wasn't 8 there at all. I would accept that the judges 9 themselves found it difficult to reconcile the 10 different interpretations, the different memories, the 11:04 11 different experiences. I think that's evident. 12 MR. BUTLER: Sorry to interrupt, but 13 could I make a suggestion 14 and it might be helpful all around that specific 15 findings be put to Sister. 11:04 16 MR. MAHER: I was kind of hoping I 17 could do this in my own 18 way. 19 MR. BUTLER: Of course Mr. Maher can do 20 this in his own way. It is 11:04 21 just a suggestion, I am trying to be helpful. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is very hard for a 23 witness -- I mean, it is 24 very hard for somebody to say, "well, do you accept?" 25 "Well, I accept the whole thing" "Is it the whole 11:04 26 thing or everything or some specific thing?" 27 28 Mr. Maher, I am concerned about something a little more 29 and that is is it suggested that we are bound by the 27 1 findings? In a case between A and B, on evidence heard 2 in that court, in that case and if the judge says on 3 the evidence here "I accept that Mr. Jeremy Maher's 4 recollection is correct about how the accident happened 5 and I don't accept -- I think Mr. Nicholas Butler is 11:05 6 mistaken in his recollection of how the accident 7 happened." 8 9 If there happens to be a commission of inquiry many 10 years later into road accidents and how they were 11:05 11 handled or something is that commission bound by that 12 finding, that Mr. Jeremy Maher was correct in saying it 13 was a blue car and Mr. Butler was wrong in saying it 14 was a green car? 15 MR. MAHER: I don't make the case that 11:06 16 the Commission is bound the 17 facts but I certainly make the case that given the 18 proximity in time between these hearings and the 19 hearings before judges of the High Court, that is 20 something to which the Commission should have due 11:06 21 regard. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that's the very 23 point that Mr. Butler has 24 expressly made. And I think he might probably want to 25 go further in asking us to make certain findings and 11:06 26 pointing to what he would regard as helpful findings to 27 him in relation to who knew what and when, insofar as 28 that issue arises, I think that would be Mr. Butler's 29 point. If people have points they want to make about 28 1 that, again they can make that, bear that in mind for a 2 submission. 3 4 But I wouldn't get into too much detail, Mr. Maher, is 5 what I am really saying. Because even if you and 11:07 6 Sr. Una O'Neill were entirely in agreement as to what 7 she accepted, I am not sure that we would regard 8 ourselves as bound, subject of course to what you and 9 Mr. Butler may submit. 10 A. Is it my place to make a remark about that? 11:07 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: By all means to, it is a 12 public inquiry. 13 A. What I feel about that is, you see, I was at some of 14 those courts cases and I was at the Commission. Now, I 15 mean the courts heard evidence in one particular way 11:07 16 and from the particular children. But Commission heard 17 evidence in another kind of way, which was very 18 different to the court way and other things kind of -- 19 what I am saying is I haven't the truth and you haven't 20 the truth and you haven't the truth, none of us has an 11:07 21 monopoly on the truth but it is in sharing all that 22 hopefully we will get to some kind of a conclusion 23 about it. Maybe that's not appropriate. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I agree entirely with the 25 first bit of what you said. 11:08 26 It is the second bit, the last bit, I am not so sure 27 about. 28 A. I don't remember what I said. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. Yes, 29 1 Mr. Maher. 2 82 Q. MR. MAHER: Sister, can I turn 3 specifically then to the 4 question of discipline, punishment and physical abuse? 5 A. Yes. 11:08 6 83 Q. The first thing I want to ask is, as I understand it, 7 there was an obligation under the rules of the 8 Industrial Schools to have what is known as a 9 Punishment Book? 10 A. That's right, yes. 11:08 11 84 Q. Am I correct in thinking that there isn't available in 12 this Commission a copy of the Punishment Book? 13 A. That's correct. 14 85 Q. Could you assist the Commission as to why that is? 15 A. No. In my evidence before -- at the first phase, we 11:08 16 have no evidence of a Punishment Book having been there 17 and there is no memory in the people whom I asked of a 18 Punishment Book being there. We were supposed to have 19 it, we didn't have it. 20 86 Q. I see. 11:09 21 A. Having said that, in the daily diaries later on in the 22 1980's every punishment is listed, as far as I can 23 gather, because it is a daily diary and we have many of 24 those. 25 87 Q. You make the case to the Commission that there is, to 11:09 26 use your own expression, "no evidence" from the 27 material of severe corporal punishment or any evidence 28 of beatings being common practice? In other words, you 29 are saying there is no evidence, so far as you can 30 1 determine, that there was severe corporal punishment? 2 A. I think I may two, three exceptions. I say that the 3 two men who were convicted of sexual abuse also 4 perpetrated severe physical abuse on the boys and I 5 also make the exception of one particular care worker. 11:09 6 88 Q. Yes. Was that a female or a male? 7 A. A female, yes. She was a house parent. 8 89 Q. Yes. I am not sure what the position is of the 9 Commission in respect of names? 10 A. She was a Sister, yes. 11:10 11 90 Q. She was a nun? 12 A. She was, yes. 13 91 Q. Is that the 1990 incident? 14 A. Yes. 15 92 Q. Isn't it the case that there was another member of 11:10 16 staff, I am going to refer to as Ms. TC? 17 A. Yes. 18 93 Q. And she also physically abused the children; isn't that 19 correct? 20 A. I suppose I am so fixed on the sexual abuse there that 11:10 21 I am not certain about that. 22 94 Q. Yes. 23 A. But she was hard on the children, certainly, I am not 24 sure I heard the word physical abuse used in relation 25 to her. 11:10 26 95 Q. This is one of the expressions that seems to feature in 27 this Inquiry, the use of the expression "hard on the 28 children", what are the Commission to understand by 29 that impression? 31 1 A. I think it has become in some ways clear to me that 2 many of the care workers in those earlier days, I am 3 talking about the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, even up until 4 the 1970's, and particularly the Sisters, seem to have 5 related to the children in the same way as they had 11:11 6 experienced family relationships. I can think of two 7 of them for whom it would be maybe opposites. I think 8 Sr. Conception, who said in her evidence that she was 9 never slapped as a child, therefore she never in all 10 her years in St. Joseph's touched a child, slapped a 11:11 11 child. 12 13 I am thinking of another who said in the family she 14 came from, maybe she didn't say this in the Commission, 15 I would have to check that, that her parents would slap 11:11 16 her when she was bold and the slaps were fairly hard 17 slaps and she said that's the way she related to the 18 children. 19 20 So when you say "hard on the children", if I say my 11:12 21 father was very strict and you say your father was very 22 easy, it is very difficult to define what the 23 difference is. 24 96 Q. The reason why I ask you this is because, as I 25 understand it, the reason why Mr. David Murray was 11:12 26 dismissed was because he was "hard on the children"? 27 A. That's right. 28 97 Q. So I am wondering really whether "hard on the children" 29 can be read as violent? 32 1 A. Well, there were a number of phrases used, you know. I 2 mean when the lad came to Sister -- the lad that she 3 trusted and the child came to Sr. Conception in the end 4 and said "we can't put up with it anymore, he's at us." 5 That was the point at which she said -- when it was 11:12 6 used then in another context, if I say that somebody 7 was hard on the children, I certainly wouldn't be using 8 it in the way in which it was used regarding David 9 Murray. 10 98 Q. Yes. Mr. Connellan in his evidence to the High Court 11:13 11 in the case of David Connellan. I have copies of this 12 for you, Sr. O'Neill, and indeed for the Commission. 13 (SAME HANDED TO THE WITNESS). 14 I am only dealing here for the moment with physical 15 abuse. Will I hand in copies of this? 11:13 16 MS. SHANLEY: This is the judgment, is 17 it? 18 MR. MAHER: Yes. 19 MS. SHANLEY: We have that. 20 99 Q. MR. MAHER: It is going back to Ms. TC, 11:14 21 Sister? 22 MR. LOWE: The name is showing at the 23 top. 24 100 Q. MR. MAHER: I see that. He alleged in 25 that case that -- and the 11:14 26 expression is used, quoted verbatim, you see it there 27 at line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 28 A. What page are you on? 29 101 Q. Page 6, line 9? 33 1 A. Yes. 2 102 Q. He alleges that TC "literally just beat the shit out of 3 him", do you see that? 4 A. Yes, I see that. 5 103 Q. What have your own investigations into that revealed? 11:14 6 A. I didn't do any investigation into David Connellan and 7 his court case. 8 104 Q. He also says at page 7, and I am talking here about the 9 paragraph which begins a little more than halfway down 10 the page, he said that the abuse -- and I won't mention 11:15 11 the name he said that: 12 "The abuse both physical and sexual at the hands of this person lasted for 13 about three years. He said it was very very frequent and very very hard to 14 live with. He said there was times when he could not go to school because 15 of a rash on his legs and his backside 11:15 due to the fact that she would not 16 change his sheets and pyjamas and beat him regularly". 17 18 19 A. I am not prepared to comment on his evidence, I mean 20 this has just been put before me now, I would need go 11:15 21 and talk to people concerned and find out what their 22 understanding of it was. 23 105 Q. So can the Commission take it that this was a case in 24 which you did not appear? 25 A. No, I was not there. No, we were not there for that. 11:15 26 106 Q. This was a case, I think, in which the State had taken 27 over the running of it? 28 A. That's right. Excuse me, Sr. Conception was sent for, 29 for one day, I think Mr. Moore accompanied her, I 34 1 wasn't there, and she was asked to give evidence about 2 schooling and stuff like that, I think. 3 107 Q. That would suggest, Sister, that there were regular 4 acts of severe violence taking place in St. Joseph's in 5 the early 1970's? 11:16 6 A. I think it suggests that David Connellan says there 7 were. I don't think it suggests anything more to me. 8 108 Q. Mr. Connellan then was transferred to Summerhill in 9 1973? 10 A. That's correct. 11:16 11 109 Q. And the house master, as we know, was a David Murray? 12 A. That's right. 13 110 Q. Just so that the picture in respect of David Murray is 14 clear, he started work, I think, in about 1972; isn't 15 that correct? 11:16 16 A. Yes. 17 111 Q. And he left in 1976; is that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that's right. 20 112 Q. MR. MAHER: Whit weekend of 1976? 11:16 21 A. I would have the date somewhere now. 22 113 Q. In any event, Mr. Connellan in his evidence to the 23 court described Mr. Murray as a monster? 24 A. Yes. 25 114 Q. A very violent man? 26 A. Yes. 27 115 Q. Who beat them frequently with his fists and often 28 resulted in bleeding and even, he said, 29 semi-consciousness? 35 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 116 Q. Would you like to comment upon that evidence? 3 A. No, I would not like -- I am hearing this for this 4 time. 5 117 Q. Are you saying that you didn't know about the judgment 11:17 6 of the High Court in this case? 7 A. I didn't read the judgment, I knew the judge had found 8 that a certain amount of money was awarded. But I 9 didn't read the judgment. 10 118 Q. You didn't read the judgment? 11:17 11 A. No, why would I? 12 119 Q. I thought that you were here to give evidence in 13 respect of this period? 14 A. I didn't think I was here to give evidence in relation 15 to High Court judgments, I must confess. 11:17 16 120 Q. Did you know, Sister, that Mr. Murray had kept an 17 Alsatian at the premises? 18 A. I did, yes. 19 121 Q. Can you tell the Commission what the name of the dog 20 was? 11:18 21 A. No, I can't. Why is that important, that I would know 22 the name of the dog that Mr. Murray kept? 23 122 Q. Sister, the name of the dog was "Thunder"; isn't that 24 correct? 25 A. I don't know. 11:18 26 123 Q. Was it a policy amongst the Congregation to allow house 27 masters to keep Alsatian dogs in the 1970's in 28 St. Joseph's? 29 A. If you had asked me -- told me you were going to ask me 36 1 that question I would have asked the Congregation. 2 124 Q. Because Mr. Murray, I suggest to you, used this dog to 3 intimidate the children? 4 A. That is true. 5 125 Q. You accept that? 11:18 6 A. I do indeed, yes. 7 126 Q. Can I suggest to you that in St. Joseph's that the 8 keeping of an Alsatian dog by a house master was 9 totally inappropriate? 10 A. No, I wouldn't accept that, I would have thought that 11:19 11 you could interpret it another way. That here was a 12 childcare worker, trained, and he brings a dog into the 13 premises, we have a dog in Our Ladies hospice because 14 it helps the patients to -- in their healing and in 15 their care. So, in retrospect of course it was 11:19 16 dreadful what he did with the dog, but at the time it 17 would have been seen that something that contributed to 18 the homeliness of the place. 19 127 Q. An Alsatian dog? 20 A. I mean an Alsatian dog, a Rottweiler , a Terrier. 11:19 21 What's the difference between an Alsatian dog and any 22 other dog in the sense? Are you 23 saying...(INTERJECTION). 24 128 Q. Seeing as you have asked me, I would suggest to you 25 that the major difference is that an Alsatian dog would 11:19 26 be associated with violence? 27 A. I am not aware of that. 28 129 Q. The threat of violence? 29 A. I hope nobody here has an Alsatian dog, if that's the 37 1 case. 2 130 Q. Sister, sorry to interrupt you, but you have spoken 3 about your evidence being based upon, in part at least, 4 conversations which you have had with former residents; 5 isn't that correct? 11:20 6 A. Yes, indeed. 7 131 Q. Did you discuss Mr. Connellan's experiences with him at 8 any time? 9 A. No, I have never spoken with him. I have met him at 10 the past pupil's reunions, he wasn't at the one on 11:20 11 Sunday, but I have never spoken with him nor has he 12 asked to speak with me. One of our dilemmas is we 13 always wait until the children come to us, we don't 14 impose ourselves on them, he has not asked to speak 15 with me. I will be happy to do so at any time if he 11:20 16 does. 17 132 Q. Did you speak to Mr. Noctor, Raymond Noctor? 18 A. I met him on Sunday, yes, and spoke with him. 19 133 Q. You are aware that he told the High Court in February 20 2005 that he had been beaten with a hurley? 11:20 21 A. Yes. 22 134 Q. Well, was there a policy in the school at the time of 23 allowing members of staff to use a hurley to inflict 24 punishment? 25 A. Absolutely not. 11:21 26 135 Q. He also says that he was beaten with a brush and with a 27 strap? 28 A. He does. 29 136 Q. What do you say about that? 38 1 A. I say there was no policy about that. I accept that he 2 was, that his evidence is that he was. And I accept 3 that various different implements may have been used, 4 like a strap or a stick. 5 137 Q. And that a threat to kill him was made by -- this is at 11:21 6 page...(INTERJECTION)? 7 A. David Murray. 8 138 Q. This is at page 437 of the judgment in the Noctor case, 9 that a threat to kill him was made? 10 A. I remember him saying that, yes, that Murray threatened 11:21 11 him. 12 139 Q. Murray brought him out at night-time? 13 A. Brought him out and showed him the cabbage plot and 14 said he would bury him there if he told anyone. 15 140 Q. Yes. I know that Sr. Joseph Conception maintains that 11:21 16 she was present in Summerhill on a regular basis; isn't 17 that correct? 18 A. She used go over in the evenings, yes. 19 141 Q. I think, in fact, she also said she used go daily and 20 in evenings? 11:22 21 A. Yes, I think you are right. Yes, i think so. 22 142 Q. How did she miss all this, Sister? 23 A. She missed it all because David Murray was so clever in 24 his activities that he was able to pull the wool over 25 so many people's eye, as is the practice of pedophiles. 11:22 26 He would have been alert to anything in relation to 27 those boys in so far as she was able. I mean the girls 28 would say that she spoiled the boys in fact. Now, I 29 mean the boys suffered enormous hurt, physical and 39 1 emotional and every other way, and in retrospect you 2 would say how could she not have seen it. I mean, how 3 can a mother not see that a child has been abused by 4 somebody. I have no answer to that. 5 143 Q. It is just that the injuries of which Mr. Noctor 11:22 6 complains were of serious physical abuse? 7 A. Yes. 8 144 Q. Would they not have been apparent to somebody? 9 A. If they were apparent they would have been treated and 10 there is no evidence to say they were treated so they 11:23 11 must not have been apparent. She would not have left a 12 child in pain or a child who was hurt without attention 13 from a doctor. 14 145 Q. Insofar as Mr. Murray is concerned, complaints were 15 made by the boys in respect of him; isn't that correct? 11:23 16 A. Yes, they were, yes. 17 146 Q. I have to be very careful to say of a physical nature? 18 A. Yes, that's right. 19 147 Q. Well they say it was sexual? 20 A. Well it is the language, that's the whole debate, as 11:23 21 the Commission themselves have said on a number of 22 occasions it is up to them to reconcile the different 23 interpretations. 24 148 Q. The language that Sr. Joseph Conception uses is that 25 "Mr. Murray was nagging them"? 11:23 26 A. "Was at them." 27 149 Q. "At them and hard at them"? 28 A. Yes. And it was interesting in the -- well, I don't 29 know if I can talk about this. A psychiatrist during 40 1 the private hearings was asked what he would understand 2 by the phrase "at them", and then he was asked, maybe I 3 don't know who, the chairperson, "what would you be 4 looking for?" He said he would not be looking for 5 sexual abuse or even physical abuse if a child said, 11:24 6 "somebody is at me." He said, "I would want to know is 7 anybody being unkind to them." So it was a phrase that 8 was certainly not understood in terms of sexual or 9 physical abuse. 10 150 Q. Mr. Murray's tenure in the school came to an end? 11:24 11 A. It did. 12 151 Q. He left halfway through his tenure, is that not 13 correct? 14 A. That's right, yes. 15 152 Q. Can you shed any light on why he left? 11:25 16 A. I think that's in my evidence. 17 153 Q. He went elsewhere? 18 A. He went to Drogheda hoping for an increase in wages and 19 the conditions there didn't suit him there for some 20 reason and he came back to Kilkenny. 11:25 21 154 Q. Is there any evidence to suggest that inquiries were 22 made by Sr. Joseph Conception or by anyone else from 23 the place that he had gone as to why he wanted to come 24 back? 25 A. No. And I have spoken -- we have spoken with the 11:25 26 Sisters in the school, was it Drogheda or Dundalk, one 27 of those places, and their response to me when I made 28 the inquiry was to the effect that he just wasn't happy 29 because he wasn't in charge of the group. There was a 41 1 Sister in charge of the group and he was her assistant 2 and he wanted -- the position wasn't the position he 3 wanted. He had been in charge of the group in 4 Kilkenny. 5 155 Q. So he returned to the same position in Kilkenny? 11:26 6 A. He did. 7 156 Q. And took up again as house master in Summerhill? 8 A. As I understand it, yes. 9 157 Q. In the intervening period, another man who was not yet 10 been brought before the courts was the man in charge, 11:26 11 is that correct, BOR, are you familiar with him? 12 A. I am -- what's the name? I am sorry, I don't know who 13 you are referring to. 14 158 Q. We will just assist you, Sister, by making a written 15 note of it. (NOTE HANDED TO SISTER). 11:26 16 A. Oh yes, I have heard his name, yes. 17 159 Q. Just so that the members of the Commission aren't in 18 the blind about this, would you mind handing that into 19 them (SAME HANDED TO THE COMMISSION)? 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 11:27 21 160 Q. MR. MAHER: He's a man in respect of 22 who complaints were made; 23 isn't that correct? 24 A. I have just gone blank now. I don't remember. I 25 remember his name. I am not aware of -- am I aware of? 11:27 26 I don't know if I am aware of complaints being made 27 against him. There were allegations made against many 28 of the staff. 29 161 Q. Yes. So allegations made against many of the staff? 42 1 A. Different kinds of allegations. 2 MR. BUTLER: Could I just suggest that 3 Mr. Maher might be more 4 specific, it might help jog the memory because this 5 does come as a surprise to the witness when documents 11:27 6 were put to her to help her prepare her evidence and to 7 have things put to her. I am not making a technical 8 objection because they were not included in the 9 documents. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is difficult for 11:28 11 somebody to deal with 12 things that have not been flagged. The advantage of 13 having things flagged is, I suppose to put it bluntly, 14 one can criticise the witness for not being familiar 15 with things. But if it is not flagged, it often puts 11:28 16 the witness in a very difficult position, who might 17 give some incorrect factual information. Take it 18 completely innocently, someone might say something 19 completely wrong and then have to be writing in to 20 correct it and giving the wrong impression. That's the 11:28 21 difficulty. 22 MR. BUTLER: If I may say so, Chairman, 23 all the more so in the 24 context of somebody who doesn't have firsthand 25 knowledge of any of these. 11:28 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, yes. It is 27 probably not terribly 28 illuminating, Mr. Maher, to be debating something that 29 we cannot really debate. We are aware -- if it has 43 1 happened in our private hearings, we know where we are, 2 we have to comply with the legislation, we know where 3 we are going. If it is something else, it is very 4 difficult to discuss something in the dark, even though 5 it is very proper that perhaps it should be in the 11:29 6 dark. But it is very difficult to do it. 7 MR. MAHER: Chairman, the position is 8 that following consultation 9 with my solicitor and Mr. Byrne, we -- or Mr. Lannigan, 10 flagged certain judgments of the High Court which we 11:29 11 intended to rely on and I am not seeking to depart from 12 anything that's isn't in the judgments. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. It is not a 14 criticism, Mr. Maher. 15 MR. MAHER: I know it is not a 11:29 16 criticism. I do not to be 17 unfair to the witness. But I do like to point out that 18 we did flag...(INTERJECTION). 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Rightly or wrongly, Sr. Una 20 is not familiar with the 11:29 21 detail of the judgments other than, I assume, the one 22 that she attended. That's rightly or wrongly. 23 A. I didn't think I would be asked about the High Court 24 judgments. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. There it is, 11:30 26 that's the situation, 27 Mr. Maher. But it doesn't stop you making any point 28 that you want to make by reference to the judgments in 29 the course of a submission. I mean, I don't want in 44 1 any way to inhibit you. I may say, Mr. Maher, I am a 2 little bit -- let's put it this way, I am a little bit 3 doubtful as to the impact, even if Sr. O'Neill agreed 4 entirely with you about what is said in the judgment. 5 MR. MAHER: I am not really putting 11:30 6 what it says in the 7 judgment. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. I said it 9 before, so I don't want to 10 weary you with that. 11 MR. MAHER: I understand that. I am 12 not going weary you, 13 Chairman, on it either. 14 162 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, can I ask you a 15 question, arising out of 11:30 16 what Mr. Maher is saying. Obviously, an issue 17 canvassed in the judgments and an issue that we have to 18 look at is what was the state of knowledge of the 19 management of the institution, to call it that? What 20 was the state of knowledge of the management of 11:31 21 St. Joseph's in view of certain things that were said 22 by the boys? One of them undoubtedly is, as you say, 23 that this person was at them? Now, we now know what 24 that meant. So, doesn't it follow from this, it 25 strikes me there are two possibilities, "I, the 11:31 26 management, knew about it and weren't able to 27 comprehend it in some way, didn't handle it properly." 28 That's possibility no. 1. 29 45 1 Possibility No. 2 is faced with information of a 2 complaint by boys, possibly not that clearly expressed, 3 the management didn't find out what the true complaint 4 was. The second point is still a very serious failure, 5 one would think. Because if I am in charge of a home, 11:32 6 or whatever, and a child comes with a complaint, surely 7 I should be aware, I should have enough skill to find 8 out what the real complaint is. 9 10 Now, that's is question, it is a comment, it is an 11:32 11 observation, I would like to know what you think about 12 it because it strikes one as being a criticism. 13 Assuming the completely innocent explanation that the 14 management did not work it out, why on earth didn't 15 they. Why didn't they say, "what do you mean he's at 11:32 16 you?" And go down and check with the other children. 17 "Is he at you?" It is not such a mystery or it is not 18 a technical term. Can you understand what I'm saying? 19 That's my puzzle. 20 A. I can understand what you are saying because I would 11:33 21 have struggled with this as well and I am not sure that 22 I can give you an answer. I am not sure I can give you 23 an answer. I tried, we tried to set it back and of 24 course nobody wants to hear this, I know, but maybe you 25 do, to set it back within the context of that time. 11:33 26 163 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the early 1970's. 27 A. It is the early 1970's and within the context of 28 everything that was going on at that time in that 29 place. Now, I could be wrong here, but it was at 46 1 maximum three and at minimum two of the boys who say 2 they told her. 3 164 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 4 A. The others, we have written letters saying "we, the 5 boys, know you did not know." So I struggle with all 11:33 6 that. 7 165 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That controversy has raged? 8 A. I would love to come with and meet answers to what you 9 are saying. 10 166 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That controversy has raged 11:34 11 of course and some people 12 say, "we support the management and the manager and we 13 think she was great and therefore we believe that she 14 couldn't have known." And it is all reflected in some 15 of the judgments, but I am going a little further and 11:34 16 saying suppose one child came and says to a manager, to 17 somebody in charge, today, "somebody is at me"? 18 A. Yes, for sure. 19 167 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well manifestly. 20 A. Absolutely, you would do it today. Well, you would do 11:34 21 it, I might do it, someone else might do it, somebody 22 else might not do it. Today, obviously, you would do 23 it. The child wouldn't even need to say "at me", the 24 slightest complaint would be investigated. But I think 25 there is an ocean of knowledge and understanding that 11:34 26 we have gained in that time. If I thought for one 27 minute that we knew and did nothing I would say it. 28 But I cannot come to that conclusion in all honesty in 29 everything that I have heard and read. That we knew 47 1 and did nothing. 2 3 That's at a certain level. I mean, at a legal level 4 you can argue balances of probabilities. 5 168 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not talking at a 11:35 6 legal level? 7 A. No, you are not and I appreciate that. Could I just 8 say, that anyone who knows or knew Sr. Conception would 9 not accept that she knew and did nothing. There are 10 other ways of putting it, as you have said in your 11:35 11 first two alternatives. You know, if you watch her 12 relationship with these very same boys, even on Sunday, 13 you would know, you would believe that they do not 14 think that she knew they were being abused. What she 15 thought, what she didn't think, what they said, what 11:35 16 they didn't say, that's another issue. But their 17 relationship with her, thank God, is undamaged. I feel 18 that if they seriously believed that she knew and did 19 nothing they certainly wouldn't be in a relationship 20 with her today and they are. 11:36 21 169 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you to 22 decide that issue -- 23 A. I can't, no. 24 170 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: -- because I am simply 25 taking the alternative, 11:36 26 which is the position that -- 27 A. And I couldn't. 28 171 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: -- possibility B that she 29 didn't know, I am saying if 48 1 she didn't know -- 2 A. Why didn't she...(INTERJECTION). 3 172 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: -- but she was told these 4 things it would have 5 meant -- sorry, would it not have meant that she should 11:36 6 have inquired and not just take it and assume that if 7 somebody says, "he is at me", or even then. I mean it 8 is not that long ago. I wanted to offer you an 9 opportunity and it is a difficult one. All right. 10 173 Q. MR. MAHER: Thank you very much. 11:36 11 Coming back to that, 12 Sister, you are suggesting that if a child had 13 complained of sexual assault that something would have 14 been done, isn't that effectively what you are saying? 15 A. Yes, I am saying that. I mean, in the private hearings 11:37 16 that was gone into in great detail, as to what was 17 said, the language that was used and there is 18 conflicting evidence there, even from the people who 19 went to Sr. Conception and to another Sister. They 20 even said -- their own testimony is conflictual, within 11:37 21 their own testimony, as to what was said and who said 22 what and if it was said and if it was not said. 23 174 Q. The incident which occurred in the 1950's, which was 24 referred to at page 1 of the folder 2 of the discovery 25 by the Department of Education and Science? 11:37 26 A. Yes. 27 175 Q. Suggests that in 1954, when a girl complained about the 28 conduct of a male employee she wasn't believed? 29 A. That's right. 49 1 176 Q. Could it not have been exactly the same situation in 2 the 1970's? 3 A. Are you -- in asking me that question is the 4 presumption being that the child explicitly said he was 5 being sexually abused? 11:38 6 177 Q. I am asking you to consider whether it is the case that 7 a child may have complained in the 1970s of sexual 8 assaults to Sr. Joseph Conception? 9 A. I think I have already answered that insofar as I can. 10 178 Q. If a child wasn't believed in the 1950's, why would 11:38 11 the child be believed in the 1970's 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's a non-sequitur, 13 Mr. Maher. 14 MR. BUTLER: It is also a slightly false 15 premise. 11:38 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is about ten 17 objections to it, but let's 18 take one. But it is a comment, Mr. Maher. 19 179 Q. MR. MAHER: I accept that, Chairman. 20 Going back to the -- we 11:38 21 better deal with the 1954/55 incident. It is a fact 22 that in that case a child complained of sexual assault 23 by a male employee; isn't that correct? 24 A. We are not sure of the language that the child used and 25 certainly she didn't use the word sexual assault, but 11:39 26 she was sexually assaulted, yes. 27 180 Q. That only came to light because of the intervention of 28 Dr. Anna McCabe from the Department of Educat9ion; 29 isn't that correct? 50 1 A. That wasn't exactly true. There was a sequence of 2 events leading up to that and in the course of her 3 going down and inquiring about why the children were 4 going be moved out of St. Joseph's, she then uncovered 5 this when she interviewed each child because the thing 11:39 6 was so complex that she needed to interview each child. 7 It was during those interviews that it was discovered. 8 181 Q. What was discovered by Dr. McCabe is that, I think, 9 three children had been sexually -- seriously sexually 10 assaulted? 11:39 11 A. Indeed, yes. 12 182 Q. What action was taken on foot of that discovery? 13 A. By? 14 183 Q. By the Congregation? The employee I think was 15 dismissed? 11:40 16 A. Oh, I beg your pardon. There was a meeting. I think 17 it was in my first evidence. I think there was a 18 meeting with Dr. Anna McCabe, another member of the 19 Department. Just bear with me while I find that. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: This was fairly extensively 11:40 21 dealt with, Mr. Maher, in 22 the opening public hearing. I know that Mr. MacMahon, 23 I think, dealt with it. 24 MR. MAHER: Yes. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to stop you, 11:40 26 but... 27 MR. MAHER: I only intend dealing with 28 it very briefly. 29 A. There was a meeting held on 5th November 1954 in 51 1 St. Joseph's and Dr. Anna McCabe, Mr. Rafferty, who was 2 the assistant secretary to the Department of Education, 3 the Superior General of the Sisters of Charity and the 4 parish priest and the Resident Manager were there at 5 that meeting and in the course of it a question was 11:41 6 asked as to what action should be taken in regard to 7 the employee. The priest requested that no prosecution 8 would be taken against BLANK and he gives his reasons 9 are -- and I quote -- oh, I nearly named him. 10 "While he deserved penal servitude, the 11:41 court case would put the convent in 11 great disrepute and four of the children concerned would have to give 12 the necessary evidence, would leave an indelible impression on their minds and 13 on the minds of the other children that could do immense harm." 14 15 So, the priest said that he would talk to BLANK and put 11:41 16 the fear of God in him and a decision was 17 reached...(INTERJECTION). 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: We decided not to name. 19 A. I am sorry. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't worry, and I think it 11:41 21 happened from time to time. 22 And everybody exercises their judgment about it. I 23 understand. It is difficult, especially when you are 24 reading something and it hadn't been redacted. It is 25 not easy to ignore names. 11:42 26 A. It would appear that Anna McCabe and the priest agreed 27 that there would be no steps taken towards a 28 prosecution. The report then was signed by 29 Mr. Rafferty and Dr. Anna McCabe. 52 1 184 Q. MR. MAHER: In the aftermath -- please 2 continue? 3 A. I am just saying the Minister obviously agreed with 4 their recommendation and also agreed with Anna McCabe's 5 recommendations concerning the placement of the girls 11:42 6 involved. 7 185 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And the girls were moved? 8 A. They were, nine of them, I think. Was it? Six or nine. 9 Nine. 10 186 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And the bishop wasn't told 11:42 11 to spare his blushes 12 because of his age and state of health? 13 A. His hearing was bad. 14 187 Q. MR. MAHER: What is interesting about 15 that, as you have described 11:42 16 it, is that the Provincial of the Order was involved? 17 A. Yes, the Superior General. 18 188 Q. That the position that you now occupy? 19 A. Except in those days there would have been no -- 20 subsequent to that we were divided into provinces or 11:43 21 regions, so now they would Provincial Superiors and 22 Councils, then the Superior General would have had more 23 immediate contact with all of the houses. 24 189 Q. Following on that discovery was any procedure put in 25 place to safeguard children? 11:43 26 A. Not that I know of. 27 190 Q. Insofar, I know I am going back to Mr. Murray, insofar 28 as Mr. Murray is concerned why was he actually 29 dismissed what was it that led to his dismissal? 53 1 A. If you just give me a moment. 2 191 Q. Of course. 3 A. Yes, the circumstances of David Murray's dismissal we 4 were told that one of the children came to 5 Sr. Conception in the yard and made a complaint again 11:44 6 that Mr. Murray was at them and they weren't able to 7 stick it. So she went later on that evening and told 8 him he would have to go because the boys were unhappy. 9 192 Q. Yes. 10 A. And she maintains then that she phoned Mr. Granville 11:44 11 and she told him that he had dismissed him. He says 12 that she didn't phone him. That evidence is 13 conflictual. There was no evidence in the Department's 14 records to say she phoned. But she's adamant she did. 15 193 Q. I am going to deal with that in a second. But I am 11:44 16 just wondering what was it that differentiated the 17 complaint that led to the dismissal from the other 18 complaints that had been made, can you assist the 19 Commission? 20 A. Yes, I think there were two things that were different. 11:45 21 First of all, it was the accumulation of complaints 22 leading up to this particular one. I think also that 23 the boy concerned was a senior boy, she had known him, 24 as she said herself in her own evidence, inside out. 25 She trusted him completely and believed at that point 11:45 26 then, given the accumulation of complaints and the fact 27 that he came and said, "we can't put up with it any 28 longer", that galvanised her into action, so far as I 29 understand it. 54 1 194 Q. Mr. Murray was dismissed? 2 A. He was. 3 195 Q. We know then in 1979 in a document which is in the 4 Department of Education discovery folder 2 at DEJK 5 166-003, I think it is. That Lusk made inquiries from 11:45 6 Sr. Joseph. I am just looking for the letter? 7 A. They asked three questions. 8 196 Q. I will just open that for you. It is dated 16th 9 Lunasa, which I think is July 1974 -- August, just goes 10 to show you: 11:46 11 "Dear Sr. Conception, I wish to refer 12 to Mr. David Murray who has been offered a post at house master in Scoil 13 Ard Mhuire, Lusk, Co. Dublin. Mr. Murray has claimed service in your 14 residential house since from 1972 to 1976. Perhaps you would be good enough 15 to state: 1- the nature of the post 11:46 occupied by Mr. Murray; 2- whether the 16 service was full time and satisfactory; 3- the first and last date of service". 17 18 The reply which was sent by Sr. Joseph Conception, 19 which was...(INTERJECTION). 20 A. 21st August. 11:46 21 197 Q. It is dated 21st August 1979. 22 "Dear sir, with reference to your letter of 16th August re Mr. David 23 Murray." 24 25 And it refers to another man, there is no allegation of 11:47 26 any nature against him. 27 "Both men were in employment here as 1 28 house father; 2 trainee childcare worker." 29 55 1 Which refers to another man. Can you explain to the 2 Commission why that is Sr. Joseph Conception didn't see 3 fit to warn Lusk, who were about to take him on as a 4 house master that he had been dismissed because he was 5 unsuitable for children? 11:47 6 A. Yes, I think that was explored in the private hearings, 7 particularly by the Chairman. In answer to that 8 Sr. Conception said that people -- well now, she didn't 9 say this, but what came through in the answering was 10 this was a kind of pro forma response and that anyone 11:47 11 with a bit of whit would have lifted the telephone and 12 said, "look, you have said and given the basic 13 information about David Murray and what he is like." 14 She says that when anyone phoned her about the 15 reference -- this is on page 30 of her own evidence, 11:48 16 that she said that David Murray was unsuitable. 17 198 Q. Well I don't have access to that. 18 A. I appreciate that. 19 199 Q. But can you assist me in relation to this, did 20 Sr. Joseph Conception not think it incumbent upon her 11:48 21 to lift the phone and warn Lusk as to Mr. Murray's 22 character? 23 A. I have no idea. The fact was in addition to that that 24 Mr. Granville was on the interviewing board in Lusk and 25 she maintains that she told him, so maybe she thought 11:48 26 that he should have known. 27 200 Q. This is something that Mr. Granville...(INTERJECTION)? 28 A. Indeed, he denies that. 29 201 Q. Insofar as that ...(INTERJECTION) 56 1 MR. BUTLER: He didn't deny he was on 2 the interview board. 3 202 Q. MR. MAHER: But he denies he was told? 4 A. He does. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: The reason why this is 11:48 6 exceptionally difficult is 7 that we are also dealing with cases where people have 8 given evidence in the High Court, which has been in 9 public, but obviously we are better off not exploring 10 too much -- well, exploring at all what people said in 11:49 11 our private sessions because that's a position we are 12 obliged to respect. 13 MR. MAHER: Just, as you know, 14 Chairman, and the members 15 of the board will know -- 11:49 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 17 MR. MAHER: -- we have no knowledge of 18 what went on in private. 19 203 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I suppose the point 20 about the letter, Sister, 11:49 21 which is obvious from looking at it, is that by 22 referring to Mr. Murray and a perfectly innocent 23 individual against whom there is no stain or blemish or 24 allegation of any kind whatsoever, by putting them 25 together an impression is being given? 11:49 26 A. One could read that into it. 27 204 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So on one view, yes, it is 28 very bald but on the other 29 by including two people, one of them -- I mean, that's 57 1 really, at the height of it, as what one can gather 2 from simply looking at it. But as you say we have had 3 evidence about the exact circumstances as one would 4 expect and this very issue has been explored up and 5 down. So it is a little bit -- while there it is, 11:50 6 that's an issue. But at the same time we can simply 7 draw attention to the fact that it has been explored in 8 a great deal of detail as one would expect. 9 A. Yes, indeed. 10 205 Q. MR. MAHER: Insofar as Mr. Brady is 11:50 11 concerned, Mr. Myles Brady, 12 I know that you say that these people were vetted and 13 they were trained and for that reason you have placed 14 trust in them, but Mr. Brady had apparently previously 15 taught in a school, I think, in Durham in England? 11:51 16 A. That's correct. 17 206 Q. St. Peter's Boys Catholic School, can you establish as 18 to whether any inquiries were made as to his character 19 in that school before he was taken on? 20 A. Sr. Conception maintains that she sought references 11:51 21 from the school which he had been in prior to coming to 22 Ireland. We know subsequently that although the facts 23 that were presented by the witness in the private 24 hearings were in fact the opposite of what had 25 happened. We know that those references were excellent 11:51 26 references because those references got Myles Brady a 27 position in a school in England where he continued to 28 abuse and they didn't even apply to St. Joseph's for 29 references because they were so good. Although indeed 58 1 that evidence was -- the opposite evidence was given by 2 a witness in the private hearings, which was a bit 3 confusing. 4 207 Q. Dealing then with the issue of when Mr. Murray left -- 5 or Mr. Brady left? 11:51 6 A. June 1977. 7 208 Q. June 1977? 8 A. Yes. 9 209 Q. Would the Department of Education advised about that? 10 A. As far as I...(INTERJECTION) 11:52 11 210 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sister, I don't think it is 12 fair to say that the 13 opposite evidence was given? 14 A. Was it not? No. I thought the impression was given 15 that...(INTERJECTION). 11:52 16 211 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: A person made it clear that 17 he did not have direct 18 knowledge of his own, he didn't have direct knowledge? 19 A. Of? 20 212 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But he was aware of 11:52 21 somebody who had -- in 22 fact, it was Mr. Butler and Mr. Moore who very 23 helpfully provided information about a court case that 24 had unsuccessfully been brought and it had been 25 appealed and, as I say, we were grateful to the 11:52 26 researches made by Mr. Butler and Mr. Moore for 27 producing the information as to the evidence that had 28 been given. 29 A. Yes. 59 1 213 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But certainly nothing was 2 said directly except other 3 than what had been reported by somebody. Isn't that 4 correct, Mr. Butler? 5 MR. BUTLER: What the person did say is 11:53 6 that he had considerable 7 inside knowledge from a solicitor in England. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, you are right. 9 MR. BUTLER: Who had represented the 10 judgment in a particular 11:53 11 way. Somewhere along the lines someone had got the 12 wrong version of events. 13 A. I am sorry, I shouldn't have raised that. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can we please avoid 15 references to what went on 11:53 16 in the private hearings before we all get into trouble. 17 A. Yes. 18 214 Q. MR. MAHER: So, Sister, insofar as 19 Mr. Brady is concerned he 20 was dismissed in the summer of 1977, Whit weekend 1977? 11:53 21 A. He was. That's right. 22 215 Q. He was dismissed summarily; isn't that correct? 23 A. He was, indeed. 24 216 Q. As I understand it, Sr. Joseph Conception and a member 25 of the Garda Síochána went to Dublin? 11:53 26 A. That's right. 27 217 Q. He was on some type of weekend off? 28 A. That's right, it was Whit weekend. 29 218 Q. Apart from the dismissal of Mr. Brady what other steps 60 1 were taken to protect future employers and their 2 charges from Mr. Brady? 3 A. Future employees? Employers? 4 219 Q. Employers and their charges? 5 A. Well, again I am going have to quote what 11:54 6 Sr. Conception said at the private hearings. 7 220 Q. Well you better ask the Chairman about that. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well I think you shouldn't. 9 A. Well she did explain that insofar as she could. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well then if she did and 11:54 11 she did, in fact, and this 12 was debated, the trouble is -- the trouble is 13 Mr. Maher, let's leave aside what the legal 14 restriction, just for the moment, is. If we have 15 actually debated it in detail, as I say, as you would 11:54 16 expect it to be debated, it is unsatisfactory to debate 17 it again in truncated form or using blanks or whatever, 18 at a subsequent stage in public. And it is clearly 19 something that we have to look into, investigate, 20 analyse and report upon. But there is a specific -- I 11:55 21 mean these hearings were held otherwise than in public, 22 i.e. in private, in camera, whatever one has to say, 23 and in that situation they are confidential. So there 24 it is, it is confidential it is confidential, it is 25 heard in private. 11:55 26 221 Q. MR. MAHER: Sister, passing then to the 27 letter from Edward Murphy, 28 which is at BDKK 01-0051/1 of the diocesan discovery, 29 do you have that, Sister? 61 1 A. Sorry the letter of? 2 222 Q. It is a letter from Mr. Murphy? 3 A. Yes. Yes, I have it. 4 223 Q. It is to Sr. Conception with a copy to the bishop; 5 isn't that right? 11:56 6 A. That's right, yes. 7 224 Q. I don't know whether this has been debated and I 8 presume that it has been debated to a great deal in 9 private. But can I suggest to you that any person 10 receiving a letter like that should have immediately 11:56 11 conducted a detailed inquiry into Mr. Murphy's 12 concerns? 13 A. Yes, that question was asked in great detail at the 14 private hearings. Can I just refer you to what I said 15 in my evidence in the first hearing? 11:57 16 225 Q. Yes, what page? 17 A. This is page 97. This is my own document now. I say 18 there that: 19 "Sr. Conception did not respond to the contents of this letter in a manner 20 that in hindsight would be deemed 11:57 appropriate. Myles Brady," I can name 21 him, "was a trained childcare worker. She trusted that he was doing his job 22 in a professional and caring manner. The resignation of the person who wrote 23 the letter is noted in an addendum to.." 24 25 That's not particularly relevant. Reading that letter 11:57 26 I would have to agree with you, it is a letter that one 27 should have responded to. The Sister in the private 28 hearings did offer an explanation. I don't know if you 29 could call it an explanation, but she commented on it 62 1 in detail. 2 226 Q. Thank you for accepting that. It is just in your 3 statement of proposed evidence to which you have 4 referred us, you say that: 5 "Sr. Conception did not respond to the 11:58 contents of this letter in a manner 6 that in "hindsight"." 7 A. Yes. 8 227 Q. I have to suggest to you that hindsight is not relevant 9 in the circumstances of this letter? 10 A. Well, in a technical sense I suppose it is, in 11:58 11 hindsight, if I got a letter like that today I would 12 nearly call in the Gardaí. In those days if you got a 13 letter like that I suppose you might not take as 14 dramatic an action. I mean, there would be all kinds 15 of systems in the proces today that you have to do 11:58 16 this, that and the other. In those days there weren't 17 in any organisation, those systems of child protection. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 19 228 Q. MR. MAHER: Well, I am going suggest to 20 you, Sister, that that 11:58 21 letter, even in the 1970's, was a letter of great 22 seriousness? 23 A. I agree. 24 229 Q. And required the recipient, who is in care of children, 25 to inquire into it further? 11:59 26 A. I can't really respond to that without speaking about 27 the private evidence. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we will leave it 29 at that. 63 1 230 Q. MR. MAHER: There is one matter, 2 Sister, and I just want to 3 ask you to comment on it. Again, it is in the diocesan 4 discovery. It just goes before this particular letter. 5 It appears to be a handwritten note and it is no. 9 in 11:59 6 the diocesan discovery, BDKK 01-0050. Do you have 7 that, Sister? 8 A. Is it in the beginning of your folder? 9 231 Q. It will be put up on the screen for you, Sister. Do 10 you see that note? 11:59 11 A. Oh that one, yes, I do indeed. 12 232 Q. Have you any idea whose writing that is? 13 A. I don't know how to answer that really now, because all 14 of that was explored again in the private hearings. It 15 is Dr. Birch's writing, I understand. 12:00 16 233 Q. I see. In that note it is clear that reference is made 17 to a threat to resign by Ed? 18 A. What appears to have happened is that he went to see 19 the bishop and spoke with the bishop on one or two 20 occasions. Sr. Conception wasn't aware that he had 12:00 21 spoken to the bishop and then it is difficult. It is 22 written a bit in code, as it would appear, as well, in 23 terms of names and numbers. 24 234 Q. To begin with ...(INTERJECTION)? 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: We may as well know what 12:00 26 the note says. The note 27 says: 28 "Ed approached Sr. A to talk to boys re drunkenness etc. She promised to look 29 into it. 64 1 2. She talked to boys one and a half hours, was shocked by what heard. 2 3. She asked B to stay off when off. 3 4. Some days later off duty beat a boy 4 badly. 5 5. Ed threatened to resign. Offer of 12:01 alternative job. Ed wants 6 investigation, offer withdrawn. 7 6. Mr. Granville investigating (Ed told) and had seen Ed's letter. 8 7. Phoned Mr. Granville -- knew 9 nothing of it." 10 12:01 11 That's what the note says. 12 235 Q. MR. MAHER: Can I ask you about that, 13 Sister? 14 A. Yes. 15 236 Q. Doesn't that establish that Mr. Edward Murphy had 12:01 16 approached Sr. A to talk about concerns that she had 17 about Myles Brady? 18 A. We don't know who that person is and we do know that it 19 wasn't Sr. Conception. 20 237 Q. I see. The reference to drunkenness, isn't is it a 12:02 21 fact that -- I am sorry. Is it a fact that Mr. Brady 22 had a problem with drink? 23 A. Yes, it is. 24 238 Q. So isn't the probability that this note refers to 25 Mr. Brady's conduct? 12:02 26 A. I presumed it did. But on the other hand, I think 27 Mr. Murphy said that he never saw him drunk. Or did 28 he? I think he did. Maybe I am wrong now. I thought 29 he said that he never saw him drunk. 65 1 239 Q. The note records that Ed, that would be Mr. Murphy, 2 threaten to resign, but there was an offer of another 3 job, but Mr. Murphy wanted an investigation and the 4 offer was withdrawn? 5 A. Certainly we are not aware of any offer of another job, 12:02 6 whether that was from another place or another 7 institution, I don't know. The bishop must have had 8 some knowledge of another job. 9 240 Q. Can I refer you to the letter of Mr. Murphy which we 10 have just looked at, dated 23rd January 1977? 12:03 11 A. Yes. 12 241 Q. The very last paragraph: 13 "Having been assured that there is no chance of transferring to another 14 group, I must therefore with even great reluctance submit this, my 15 resignation." 12:03 16 17 A. Yes, but that was a transfer within the institution to 18 another group, it wasn't another job. 19 242 Q. Is the inference to be drawn from the note, I 20 appreciate this is difficult, is the inference to be 12:03 21 drawn from the note that it was made clear to 22 Mr. Murphy that if he withdrew the request for 23 investigation he would be offered another job within 24 the institution? 25 A. I don't think that's correct. I think Mr. Murphy 12:03 26 himself said he wouldn't have used the word 27 investigation. Oh sorry, that's the private hearings. 28 It is all in my heads as a whole, I can't differentiate 29 between the two. 66 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the 2 difficulties. I think the 3 best you can do, Mr. Maher, is to draw attention to the 4 documents as they stand, bearing in mind that they are 5 matters that we have been over and they are clearly 12:04 6 important matters. It is very hard for a witness not 7 to refer to other matters ranging over possibly what 8 has been said in public at Phase I, as well as what's 9 been said in private. 10 243 Q. MR. MAHER: In any event, Sister, we 12:04 11 know that Mr. Brady, who 12 was not sacked after the receipt of that letter? 13 A. That's true. 14 244 Q. And it was also a known fact that a visitor to the 15 premises was sexually assaulted by him? 12:04 16 A. That's correct. 17 245 Q. Some five months later? 18 A. That's right. 19 246 Q. Just bear with me for a moment. 20 A. Sure. 12:05 21 247 Q. Thank you, Sister. I just wanted to ask you finally in 22 relation to a member of the religious order who left in 23 1990 because she had been severely -- she severally 24 corporally punished three children in her care; isn't 25 that correct? 12:06 26 A. Yes, there were a number of claims against her made by 27 one person, yes. 28 248 Q. She left and went, as I understand, on a mission? 29 A. She did, a year later. 67 1 249 Q. I know that a member of the board asked you a question, 2 I think, at the original hearing as to what steps were 3 taken in relation to that nun, to prevent her coming 4 into close contact with children again? 5 A. Yes. 12:06 6 250 Q. And I think your reply was that you were going look 7 into it? 8 A. That's correct. 9 251 Q. Can you assist the Commission in relation to that? 10 A. Yes, I can. Can I just say about that person that she 12:06 11 was taken out by the then Provincial, I presume, within 12 a month of that second meeting between the programme 13 manager, the care staff and the Resident Manager, and 14 it is just interesting that, you know, no allegation 15 was ever proven against the woman and nobody ever said 12:06 16 they saw her slapping. She herself said she slapped 17 two of the boys and the guards brought them back and 18 they had gone to the quarry playing and they put some 19 kind of lighting thing into an old woman's letter box 20 and the guards brought them back and she beat them in 12:07 21 front of the guards. However, that's not your 22 question. Your question, it was the former Superior 23 General, Sr. Francis Ignatius Fahey, who wrote a letter 24 to the Provincial Superior in Zambia advising her that 25 Sr. BLANK was not be -- sorry, I shouldn't have named 12:07 26 her. That that person was not to be placed in charge 27 of children. 28 252 Q. So a letter was written? 29 A. It was written. I think we sent it in. Did we send 68 1 it? 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 3 MR. MAHER: Thank you very much, 4 Sister. 5 12:07 6 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. O'NEILL BY MR. MAHER 7 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you, 9 Mr. Maher. Now, 10 Ms. McGoldrick. 12:07 11 12 SR. UNA O'NEILL WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 13 THE COMMISSION 14 15 MS. McGOLDRICK: Good morning, Sister. 12:07 16 A. Good morning. 17 253 Q. Before I deal with some of the issues that may have 18 arisen follow the Phase II hearings. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. McGoldrick, you are not 20 coming into the microphone, 12:08 21 if you pull it closer to you. 22 254 Q. MS. McGOLDRICK: Sorry. Before I deal with 23 some of the matters that 24 have arisen as a result of hearings in Phase II, I 25 would just like to ask you a couple of questions in 12:08 26 relation to non-controversial matters. 27 A. Sure. 28 255 Q. I think in the course of your public evidence at Phase 29 I you mentioned that between 1942 and 1956 some of the 69 1 Sisters attended a childcare course in the United 2 Kingdom, could you tell the Committee how that came 3 about? 4 A. Yes, it goes back to the fact that the Superior General 5 at that time would have had direct contact with the 12:08 6 houses throughout the Congregation in different 7 countries and we did have a childcare home in 8 Walthamstowe in London. She became aware of the 9 courses that was there, that had started in 1948, I 10 think, in Cavendish Square. It was set up following 12:09 11 the publication of the Curtis Report. And it had the 12 approval of the Home Office, who in fact awarded 13 certificates as well. 14 15 We do have a letter of 12th May 1948 describing the 12:09 16 contents of the course as six months theoretical and 17 six months practical and of the six months practical, 18 two months were to be spent in a non-Catholic home and 19 four months were to be sent in a Catholic home. 20 12:09 21 It was then that she decided to send some of the 22 Sisters from Ireland on that one year course. The 23 first two went, I think it would have been -- actually 24 there is a mistake in my original testimony, I 25 discovered the other day, that date is wrong. 1948, I 12:09 26 think she sent the first two. Thereafter Sisters went 27 to do the long course and they also did several short 28 courses in the course of the years following. 29 256 Q. Who provided the funding for the Sisters to attend that 70 1 course? 2 A. The Congregation paid for the Sisters from Ireland. I 3 think later on there were grants from the Home Office 4 for the Sisters who -- from Walthamstowe who had done 5 the course, but anyone outside the jurisdiction had the 12:10 6 pay for the courses. We do have a receipt here of 25th 7 November 1957 to cost of training for 1956/57 course 8 for Sister, and it names two Sisters, Ł60 sterling 9 each. So that gives an idea of how much it would have 10 cost. 12:10 11 257 Q. Do we know if any lay staff or lay care workers attend 12 this course? 13 A. I think there was a course for lay people and this 14 course was set up for nuns, it would appear. Later on, 15 as I understand it, the two amalgamated and I know 12:10 16 certainly some of our Sisters would have gone over in 17 the late 1960's who would have done the course there 18 and it would have been for everybody. 19 258 Q. How was it decided which Sisters would attend the 20 course? 12:11 21 A. Well, I mean how was it ever decided who did what in 22 that sense? I suppose if Sisters were going to be put 23 into childcare the Superior General decided that she 24 would send them there for the training, I would 25 suspect. 12:11 26 259 Q. The reason I ask that, is that it would appear that the 27 Resident Manager, Sr. Conception, didn't attend this 28 course? 29 A. That's right. 71 1 260 Q. Is there any explanation for that? 2 A. No, and I have no explanation to offer, other than that 3 there is some reference to the fact that managers and 4 Superiors of religious houses could not be released for 5 a full year to do a course because what would happen to 12:11 6 the house or to the institution in the meantime? Now, 7 in retrospect you say maybe they should have been the 8 first people to go. But no, she didn't go. She went 9 straight from her training as a Sister to St. Joseph's, 10 Kilkenny. 12:11 11 261 Q. In terms of how do you think the course influenced the 12 operation of the Industrial School in Kilkenny? 13 A. I think it was fairly obvious what happened because in 14 England the group system was in operation and the 15 course introduced the Sisters to the group system and 12:12 16 part of their course, as I just said, included 17 practical visits to different institutions, different 18 homes to see how the method worked. In fact, there is 19 reference in our annals to say, if I can quote it: 20 12:12 "The training in England has changed 21 the whole attitude to the treatment of Industrial School children". 22 23 24 Now, the Sisters in Walthamstowe had also introduced 25 the group system, with the assistance obviously of 12:12 26 whatever Home Office or whatever the Government 27 guidelines over there required it. So the Sisters, 28 they would have seen the group system working and she 29 herself -- because it is evident for two subsequent 72 1 homes St. Patrick's, Kilkenny being one and another one 2 in Dublin where the annals says -- Mother General says 3 we must introduce the group system. But in 4 St. Joseph's it just seemed to be a natural consequence 5 of them coming back and saying this is the best way to 12:13 6 do it. They would have come back then and that was 7 where the first break up of the institution happened. 8 262 Q. I want to discuss in general terms first the 9 relationship that the Sisters of Charity have with the 10 particular diocese in which any community is located? 12:13 11 A. Yes. 12 263 Q. Just in general terms what is the nature of a 13 relationship between a Bishop and a community of 14 Sisters? 15 A. Well the fact is that as a Congregation we have what 12:13 16 you call central government, which means that, unlike 17 some other Orders, we are not - how can I put this? - 18 we are not under the authority, the direct authority of 19 any Bishop. So we are administered centrally. Now, we 20 would obviously maintain good relations with the Bishop 12:14 21 and the only canonical requirement is that we inform 22 the Bishop if we are going to close a house and we ask 23 his permission, I think, if we are going to open one. 24 However, having said that it depended on the Bishop. 25 If the Bishop is interested in what we are doing and if 12:14 26 there is a good relationship between them then there 27 could be a great deal of interaction between Bishop and 28 the local community. That would never have happened in 29 Dublin but it would have happened in other places that 73 1 were small. And it obviously happened in Kilkenny. 2 264 Q. Has that always been the situation, that he no direct 3 authority over a community of Sisters? 4 A. With us. And, in fact, it was one of the things we had 5 to fight for, because the Bishop of Cork wanted us to 12:14 6 have diocesan authority and we didn't go there for many 7 years, even though our founder is from there, because 8 he didn't like the central government idea. So we have 9 always that had central government, yes. 10 265 Q. In relation to discovery that has been made much of the 12:14 11 documentation relates to the relationship between Dr. 12 Birch, who was Bishop of Ossory between 1964 and 1981? 13 A. That's right. 14 266 Q. The reason I raise the point is that there are two 15 documents which can be read together and they have the 12:15 16 identification of DEJK059/059 and 60. They are two 17 documents that record the visit of a person from the 18 Department of Education and a Mr. Madden, who is a fire 19 surveyor. Their reason for the visit was dealt with, I 20 think, in Phase I. But what I think is interesting 12:15 21 from those documents is the degree to which the Bishop 22 seemed to be able to direct the activities of the 23 community. For example, he was able to direct that the 24 play ground in the industrial school would be closed so 25 that an adoption centre could be built. He was able to 12:15 26 direct that boys would attend schools in the local 27 community. More particularly, he was able to direct 28 that two houses would be built in the local community 29 to accommodate boys who were being difficult. This was 74 1 perceived as a bad idea, I think, from the documents, 2 perceived as bad idea by the Sisters and also by the 3 Department of Education. 4 A. That's the Department's interpretation of it. You are 5 right in the sense that the Department certainly views 12:16 6 all of this negatively. That's their interpretation of 7 what happened. There is nothing that the Sisters would 8 have done or been forced to do by the Bishop unless 9 they wanted to do it for the good of the children. So 10 while the Department interprets it as the Bishop coming 12:16 11 on the heavy and making these decisions, there is no 12 way, as I would understand, that the Sisters would have 13 done it unless they thought it was for the good of the 14 children. 15 267 Q. If I could read out the paragraph. 12:17 16 A. Of course. 17 268 Q. This is document DEJK059/059. This is note of 18 Mr. Madden, who is the Chief Fire Surveyor. If you 19 could turn to page 3 of that document. I think at the 20 head of the page it has a handwritten page number of 12:17 21 64. 22 A. Yes. 23 269 Q. The first line is "other proposed developments are"? 24 A. I don't have a 64 on the top of anything. Oh, I do 25 here. I beg your pardon, I have it. 12:17 26 270 Q. At the last paragraph on that page is: 27 "Dr. Birch's reaction to this pressing 28 problem was to direct the Resident Manager to take an option on two 29 three-bedroomed semi-detached houses in a nearby housing estate." 75 1 2 A. Yes. 3 271 Q. Then towards the end of the paragraph it states: 4 "The nuns themselves now realise that a 5 pair of houses half a mile away would 12:18 represent far more problems than 6 advantages and will endevour to persuade the Bishop to abandon the 7 scheme. Any such expenditure would obviously be far better employed in 8 building an additional residential block within the present site." 9 10 That, to me, suggests that the Bishop at the time had a 12:18 11 greater say over the operation of the home than the 12 Department of Education and by the Sisters? 13 A. Yes, I would think myself that that's what the 14 Department might have thought. But I would suggest 15 that, that was certainly not the reality, that anything 12:18 16 the Sisters would have done they would have decided to 17 do on the basis that this was for the best. Actually 18 in relation to that, in a further letter later on I 19 found it interesting in 060/3 with No. 67 on top of it. 20 If you have that. It is not there. Wait until we see. 12:18 21 No that's not the one I want. In one of those letters 22 anyway, it is obvious that the Department do not want 23 us. They are certainly not going to finance the new 24 house, which was Beech Park, and they say we are going 25 to persuade the Bishop that we now won't take an 12:19 26 option. We went ahead, we moved the children into 27 Beech Park. And Beech Park was one of the great 28 successful small houses in the beginning. 29 76 1 So we went ahead, we did it, we paid for it ourselves, 2 the Department wouldn't give us the money. We were, in 3 fact, doing the group home system and the Department 4 wouldn't support us it would seem to me. But I take 5 your point, that's what is there. But I suspect that 12:19 6 anything that the Sisters would have done, they would 7 have done only in the best interests of the children. 8 They would have listened to the Bishop, obviously. But 9 they would have done what they thought was right. 10 272 Q. Just along the same lines, if you go back to the 12:19 11 episode in 1954 involving the layman in St. Joseph's. 12 There was a great deal of debate as to whether or not 13 the Bishop should be informed? 14 A. That's right. 15 273 Q. The debate was along the lines and the presumption was 12:20 16 that this was something that the Bishop should be 17 advised of. 18 A. Yes. 19 274 Q. And how really could they get out of advising him, 20 because he was old and frail and wouldn't appreciate 12:20 21 hearing the episode. That also suggests that the 22 Bishop had some sort of a supervisory role over the 23 institution, or even that the Sisters themselves 24 regarded themselves as being under some sort of an 25 obligation to advise the Bishop. Would that be fair? 12:20 26 A. Could I express it just in a slightly different way? I 27 would say that what happened, the abuse of the little 28 girls was just such an appalling thing to happen that 29 the Sisters seemed to not be party even of that 77 1 conversation as to what would happen. It seems to have 2 been the Department and the priest on behalf of the 3 Bishop -- well, without the Bishop knowing that he was 4 acting on his behalf -- who made the decision. That 5 would certainly appear to me to be the case, that that 12:21 6 decision was made very much by the priest. 7 275 Q. That even puts it a step further, that the Department 8 of Education would have considered that there was some 9 sort of responsibility to advise the Bishop? 10 A. I really don't know. It certainly appears that the 12:21 11 Bishop -- or the priest had a great deal of influence 12 in that decision. 13 276 Q. Let me move forward then to the 1970's. We know that 14 Dr. Birch was involved in or had some sort of 15 connection with a complaint that was made in respect of 12:21 16 Mr. Brady? 17 A. Yes. 18 277 Q. Would you expect -- or would Dr. Birch have had an 19 expectation that if Mr. Murray was removed from his 20 post, or that Mr. Brady was removed from his post for 12:21 21 interfering with children, would he have had an 22 expectation of being advised of that. 23 A. I have no way of knowing. Dr. Birch was extremely 24 socially active, he had set up all kinds of services in 25 Kilkenny, including on our grounds, the social services 12:22 26 centre was set up on our grounds, and all these other 27 things we wanted to set up. Whether he would -- I 28 don't know. I would doubt it. He would have had no 29 say in the internal day-to-day affairs of St. Joseph's 78 1 to my knowledge. And I don't think he would have 2 interfered. I think Sr. Conception's general evidence, 3 not private now but general evidence would be that she 4 had very little to do with the Bishop herself. I 5 suspect it was the Superior and himself who might have 12:22 6 talked about various matters. 7 278 Q. I think at that time the Bishop was very much involved 8 in the operation of the industrial school in Kilkenny, 9 Dr. Birch, at that time, in the 1960's and 1970's was 10 very involved? 12:22 11 A. I think he was very concerned that the best would be 12 done for the industrial school and he certainly was 13 very interested in it. I am not sure how the Sisters 14 would have interpreted that as something that they 15 should kind of take great account of. He did advocate 12:23 16 on their behalf and he looked for funding on their 17 behalf. But he would have been going to the Department 18 about many things, all the different services he wanted 19 to set up, and he would have brought the industrial 20 school into it as part of it. 12:23 21 279 Q. In relation to matters that may have arisen in Phase II 22 and the state of knowledge of the community in Kilkenny 23 in relation to sexual abuse, particularly by Mr. Brady 24 and by Mr. Murray. 25 A. Yes. 12:23 26 280 Q. We have heard evidence from the various people who were 27 involved in the removal of Mr. Murray from Kilkenny? 28 A. Yes. 29 281 Q. And I think as you have correctly said there are 79 1 different accounts that have been given by different 2 people of what was said at the time? 3 A. Yes. 4 282 Q. And that is a matter for the Committee to decide? 5 A. Yes. 12:24 6 283 Q. In relation to Myles Brady, we know that he was 7 confronted by Sr. Conception and a volunteer, a member 8 of the Garda in Dublin, at Whit weekend in 1977? 9 A. Yes. 10 284 Q. In the statement that you prepared for the emergence 12:24 11 hearings in July 2004 you said that the understanding 12 of Sr. Conception at the time was that Mr. Brady had 13 been physically abusing the children. Also in your 14 evidence you said that Sr. Conception would be giving 15 evidence that her understanding was that he physically 12:24 16 abused the children? 17 A. Mr. Brady? 18 285 Q. Mr. Brady, yes. 19 A. Did I say that? I did. 20 286 Q. If I can refer you to the evidence that you have given 12:25 21 at Phase I of these hearings and if you turn to page 22 142? 23 A. Of which now? 24 287 Q. Of the transcript, I beg your pardon. 25 A. Yes. 12:25 26 288 Q. This is a question, question 404 at the bottom of the 27 page, and this has been following some debate as to 28 what was known in 1977 by Mr. Brady. The Chairperson 29 asked you: 80 1 "Q. If I am understanding, there are going to be two positions on that; Sr. 2 Conception is going say she didn't know there were allegations of sexual 3 interference with him at that time." 4 And you say: 5 12:25 "A. That's right." 6 7 Over the page on 143. 8 A. Yes. If you go back, and maybe I'm jumping on you now, 9 if you go back to question 400 there the Chairperson 10 asked: 12:26 11 "Q. What did they confront him 12 with? 13 And my answer there was that I had only read the 14 statement of the Garda who accompanied her very lately. 15 It was only then that I became aware that there was a 12:26 16 reference to, and I want to use the right word and I 17 can't know what the right word was. Wait until I see 18 now if I can find it. John Tuohy's evidence. Yes, I 19 think I have it here. That was the private hearing, 20 was it? 12:26 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure, 22 Ms. McGoldrick, we need to 23 explore all this. It is going to land us into all 24 kinds of complications, because we have the emergence 25 hearings, Phase I, in public. In the meantime we have 12:27 26 private hearings, we have court cases, three, some of 27 which refer to this. We have criminal trials. I mean, 28 we are going to have to make the best of what we have 29 heard. But I am just not sure. Even that last one was 81 1 a question put by me trying to posit two different 2 situations, which was about knowledge and not -- I am 3 just not sure it is terribly useful. 4 MS. McGOLDRICK: My question, Chairman, was 5 going to be, and the same 12:27 6 objection may apply, my question was going to be is her 7 understanding of what happened in Whit Weekend 1977, 8 has that changed as a result of what she heard at Phase 9 II? That was my question. 10 A. Yes, I can answer that I think. I think I can answer 12:28 11 that. I think that, first of all, the term sexual 12 abuse was never used in the dismissal at any stage. I 13 think the word that was used, that Sr. Conception said 14 was that what Mr. Brady did was improper. I think 15 that's the way she heard it. 12:28 16 289 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But sex was being spoken 17 of. 18 A. Indeed, it was. 19 290 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sex was in people's minds 20 when the Garda officer and 12:28 21 Sr. Conception confronted Brady in Dublin that Whit 22 Weekend. And that is contrary, indeed, to what was 23 said in the question and answer session, to the extent 24 that that is of significance. 25 A. Yes, that's true. 12:29 26 291 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That is a difference from 27 that. 28 A. It is a difference, yes. So, listening to the evidence 29 of that person and of Sr. Conception I would understand 82 1 that in the presence -- I mean, I think Garda Touhy 2 said that -- or that man who accompanied Sr. Conception 3 said. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is nothing terribly 5 disastrous about mentioning 12:29 6 his name. But I think the difference between the two, 7 we have the Brady controversy and we have the Murray 8 controversy, they are different controversies. 9 A. Yes, they are indeed. 10 292 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And as to Brady, yes, when 12:29 11 the Garda and the Resident 12 Manager went to Dublin the allegation was sexual 13 misconduct? 14 A. Yes. And it was the man who did all the talking, and 15 "touched him improperly", that's the phrase Sr. 12:30 16 Conception says that Garda Touhy used. Garda Touhy in 17 fact himself says it on page -- he says it somewhere 18 here in his testimony that in the presence of Sr. 19 Conception Myles Brady admitted that he touched that 20 boy improperly. 12:30 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: There was an acceptance of 22 that? 23 A. Yes, there was. 24 293 Q. MS. McGOLDRICK: The other area I want to 25 ask you about are the 12:30 26 protocols or procedures that have been put in place 27 from time to time to protect children. 28 A. Yes. 29 294 Q. I think, Sister, as you rightly said, pedophiles 83 1 operate in such a way that they carry out their 2 activities in secret and it is very unlikely that they 3 are going to be caught in the act? 4 A. That's right, yes. 5 295 Q. That has always the case? 12:30 6 A. Yes. 7 296 Q. And it is still the case today? 8 A. Yes. 9 297 Q. Therefore, it is very important to put in place 10 procedures to try and prevent the sexual abuse of 12:30 11 children. 12 A. Yes. 13 298 Q. In that regard I want to ask you couple of questions 14 that I think arise as a result of the hearings in Phase 15 II. We heard evidence that the community of Sisters in 12:31 16 Kilkenny was divided into different work areas? 17 A. That's right. 18 299 Q. Some were involved in social services and some were 19 involved in the care of children in the industrial 20 school? 12:31 21 A. Yes. 22 300 Q. We heard evidence of a rule or a practice that where a 23 person who is involved in one particular area of work 24 was privy to information involving the activities of 25 Sisters in other areas of work that was not something 12:31 26 that would cross over. They were Chinese walls so to 27 speak. We have heard that, without going into what 28 exactly was said in the private hearings, we have heard 29 that complaints were made to an individual who was not 84 1 involved, a Sister who was not involved in the care of 2 children in the residential home. 3 A. Yes. 4 301 Q. And this rule was used to explain why the complaint was 5 not passed on. 12:32 6 A. Yes. 7 302 Q. What is this rule and where does it come from? 8 A. I think I sent in a supplementary statement about that. 9 I made inquiries of various Sisters within the Irish 10 province, including former Superior Generals and former 12:32 11 Provincials. The rule wasn't written anywhere, but it 12 was understood that at meal times, when we began to 13 talk at meals, and at recreation time we did not 14 discuss our own ministry. There would have been 15 reasons for that. One would have been that for 12:32 16 confidentiality of the people that we were dealing 17 with. I think I say in that, that we would still 18 honour that today. For instance, Sisters working in 19 Our Ladies Hospice wouldn't come back to their 20 Community and discuss patients who were there, their 12:32 21 names. They would never talk about that kind of thing. 22 So the confidentiality of the children in Kilkenny 23 would have been paramount. 24 25 Secondly, the Sisters were engaged in different 12:33 26 ministries, they were trained to do different things. 27 Some of them would have had very high profile jobs, 28 like if you were head mistress of a school. Others 29 might be doing something that was very quiet. So the 85 1 whole idea of boasting about your ministry, or making 2 others feel -- that would be part of the reason for not 3 talking about it either. 4 303 Q. Well this is a slightly different thing. I can 5 understand what you are saying there and I can 12:33 6 understand how there would be no need to pass an 7 information to somebody who had no interest in 8 receiving it? 9 A. Or no right. 10 304 Q. No interest or no right to receive it. 12:33 11 A. Yes. 12 305 Q. But supposing somebody came with a concern that was of 13 great interest to a Sister in a different field of work 14 and somebody that, if she had that information, she 15 would be in a position to act on, should that rule 12:33 16 still operate? 17 A. Oh, it doesn't operate now. Absolutely. She would 18 immediately go and report it. I mean in each of our 19 institutions now there are protocols for child 20 protection and for elder protection, in our hospice and 12:34 21 in the other various nursing homes we have, which would 22 preclude a situation ever occurring again as what 23 happened in Kilkenny. We would be under a very serious 24 obligation if we heard of anything happening that we 25 would indeed report it. 12:34 26 27 Now, when Sisters are employed by -- even our own 28 Sisters working in our own places like St. Vincent's or 29 Our Ladies Hospice, or whatever -- if you are reporting 86 1 to your line manager, first of all, which wouldn't be 2 Congregation at all, so if I am employed I report to 3 the person who is the line manager in that particular 4 institution. So, you know, we would follow the 5 protocols that any other lay staff would have to follow 12:34 6 in any of our institutions. 7 306 Q. But if I go back to the scenario where a Sister is 8 advised of a serious concern in relation to another 9 Sister's area of work. 10 A. Yes. 12:34 11 307 Q. Was it ever satisfactory that that would not be passed 12 on? Could it ever be satisfactory, even in the light 13 of what we have learnt in the recent years? Was that 14 ever an excuse? 15 MR. BUTLER: I don't mind this being 12:35 16 pursued in a general way, 17 but if it is being applied to a specific set of facts 18 dealt with in Phase II I think the implied premise to 19 the effect that the reason for not dealing with it, as 20 Ms. McGoldrick suggested, was this rule or custom of 12:35 21 the Order, I don't think that was, in fact, the 22 evidence given. The evidence, as I recall, was that 23 the answer would have been that a suggestion would have 24 been made to the person to go to the Resident Manager. 25 Then in a more general context this traditional custom 12:35 26 or rule was elaborated on in a further letter to the 27 Committee. 28 308 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. Sister, do 29 you think that reticence in 87 1 discussing -- obviously everybody would respect the 2 idea that if you are a carer in a hospital or working 3 in a doctor's surgery, or whatever it is, you don't 4 come home and bladder about your patient. Obviously, 5 everybody accepts that. Whether you are in a religious 12:36 6 order or not in a religious order there is no problem 7 about that. And, equally, that it is proper to report 8 to a manager or your boss, who whoever it is, everyone 9 agrees with that. I think the question is: Insofar as 10 there is a religious or congregational emphasis on 12:36 11 silence or non-communication, do you think that creates 12 a difficulty when you need to have maximum 13 communication? Something like that. 14 15 In other words, in a context where people are caring 12:37 16 for children, or whatever else happens to be the 17 particularly important issues that have to be 18 communicated, in circumstances where communication is 19 important is it helpful I think is the basic point 20 Mr. McGoldrick is at, is it helpful to have a religious 12:37 21 community that regards itself as bound by a rule of not 22 silence, but reticence? Now, something like that. 23 Discuss. There is no perfect way of putting this 24 question, but it is essentially an observation, a 25 question. 12:37 26 A. Isn't it very difficult to communicate what was behind 27 that because the way you phrase it I don't really 28 recognise it. I know exactly what you are saying but I 29 don't recognise it in the way we interacted with each 88 1 other in that sense. It would never have been thought 2 of I think that if there was a serious issue it 3 wouldn't have been brought to the appropriate channels. 4 Do you know what I mean? So even in a school we 5 wouldn't talk about our pupils. If something bad 12:38 6 happened, say a teacher in a school had -- I don't know 7 what she had done, she had got bad results in the Inter 8 Cert, I don't think a Sister would come back who was 9 the principal of the school and even say that much. 10 She wouldn't say Miss so and so got bad results. It 12:38 11 would have been very protective, maybe too 12 protective -- and I think it would be the same today of 13 the institute -- but it wasn't to prevent legitimate 14 conversation. And it certainly wasn't there in anyway 15 intended -- inadvertently it did, perhaps -- but 12:38 16 intended to prevent the legitimate process of a 17 complaint that was serious to the Community, and 18 especially to Superior, who was overall in charge of 19 what was going on. 20 309 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think there is any 12:39 21 suggestion that it would be 22 calculated or intended to do that. 23 A. No. 24 310 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But to go back to the 25 school thing that you are 12:39 26 talking about, Sister. If there is no discussion, for 27 instance about punishment. 28 A. Yes. 29 311 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Suppose it is one of those 89 1 schools where, like when I 2 was at school, if there is no discussion about 3 punishment then it might be suggested that it was open 4 to each teacher to decide for himself, in my case, 5 how much punishment he would do. 12:39 6 A. Right. 7 312 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Whereas if you had more 8 discussion it might be 9 said, well, you are more likely to have a standard 10 policy or stop somebody going over the top or losing 12:39 11 his head, or whatever it was. So, in that context 12 discussion of the job and the work has relevance. Do 13 you understand? I don't want to box you into a corner. 14 A. I do, but your analogy falls down really if you think 15 about it, because if you are talking about teachers who 12:40 16 are all within a school, working at the same thing the 17 difference from what we are talking about now is that 18 we were engaged in a whole lot of different works. Say 19 we had been a Congregation only engaged in education, 20 like maybe the Brother or the Mercy Sisters, I could 12:40 21 imagine them coming back in and talking about what was 22 going on in the school. But there might only have 23 been two Sisters in the school, say, in one of our 24 houses in Dublin. There would be two over at the 25 hospital. There could be three out in social work. 12:40 26 That was why we didn't talk about it. And there was 27 one house I can think of where most of the Sisters, 28 funnily enough, were in education. I suspect there a 29 lot of conversation would have gone on around. Maybe. 90 1 313 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So the short answer is 2 really that the religious, 3 if that is what it was, practice or understanding you 4 say had nothing to do with the communication or non 5 communication of relevant information one way or the 12:40 6 other. 7 A. I think that's true. I do think that's true. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 9 314 Q. MS. McGOLDRICK: Another issue that I think 10 arose in Phase II, a number 12:41 11 of Sisters gave evidence who were teaching or looking 12 after the children at the same time as David Murray 13 and/or Myles Brady were working? 14 A. That's right. 15 315 Q. And also a number of lay workers gave evidence as to 12:41 16 their recollection of David Murray and Myles Brady. I 17 think in David Murray's case we know that he was the 18 first childcare worker to qualify from the Kilkenny 19 course? 20 A. Yes. 12:41 21 316 Q. And it was regarded as a bit of a coup to have him in 22 Kilkenny? 23 A. Indeed. 24 317 Q. And we now that it was very difficult to recruit male 25 staff. So most of them recalled him coming, most of 12:41 26 them recalled him being very well regarded by the 27 community, but none of them recalled his departure from 28 the school, or from the institution. None of them 29 recalled that he was fired for being harsh on the 91 1 children, or none of them had ever heard of there being 2 any concern at the time. The same can be said in 3 respected of Myles Brady. If you go back, and we are 4 looking at the procedures and safeguards that should be 5 put in place so that pedophiles cannot operate in a 12:42 6 residential setting, was that not a failure on the part 7 of the Congregation? 8 A. Yes, but the presumption, I think, behind your question 9 then is that it was known he was a pedophile therefore, 10 Murray for instance, things should have been put in 12:42 11 place. I think, for instance, that they did know he 12 was gone. I think they all said they knew he was gone. 13 I think it was they didn't know why he was gone. Isn't 14 that right? 15 318 Q. Yes. 12:42 16 A. I am sorry, I have lost your question. 17 319 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Was that a failure? 18 A. Which? That they didn't know why he was gone? 19 320 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That they didn't know why 20 he was gone? 12:43 21 A. Was that a failure? I don't know. If a teacher in a 22 school was dismissed should you tell the other 23 teachers? I don't know. 24 321 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you were going back 25 to the analogy of the 12:43 26 school that you said wasn't the right one. It is hard 27 to think of circumstances where somebody disappears 28 suddenly that you would think it appropriate that 29 nothing would be said. 92 1 A. So if you follow that through then, what do you think 2 should have been done? Should she have assembled the 3 staff and said I have dismissed Myles Brady -- or the 4 other man, Murray -- because he was hard on the lads? 5 Maybe. I really don't know. I mean I know what I 12:43 6 should do now. I don't know. 7 322 Q. MS. McGOLDRICK: To stay on the area of 8 protocol and safeguards. 9 We know that David Murray sexually abused children in 10 the school. 12:44 11 A. Yes. 12 323 Q. We know that Myles Brady sexually abused children in 13 the school. 14 A. Yes. 15 324 Q. And there is debate as to whether the children made 12:44 16 known that complaint? 17 A. That's right. 18 325 Q. Supposing we take it that no child made an allegation 19 or made any Sister aware that they were being sexually 20 abused does that not also suggest another failure in 12:44 21 the system, that the children did not feel free to 22 complain? 23 A. I think that was explored a fair amount in the private 24 hearings and even the people who said they brought, in 25 one case, brought the child to complain, I mean he gave 12:44 26 varying interpretations of what was said, the language 27 that was there to be used, the inability of the child 28 to speak of sexual things and to put words on it. I 29 think it, in retrospect, is a failure of the system. 93 1 At the time I don't think the language or the ability 2 to speak about sexual matters would have been possible. 3 That was a failure. But if you think of children in a 4 home, what kind of sex education did any girl or boy in 5 the 50's and 60's get? I mean, it varied, didn't it? 12:45 6 326 Q. Is there anything to be read into the fact that the 7 only complaint that we are certain that was made of a 8 sexual nature involved the sexual abuse of a child who 9 was not a resident of the school. 10 A. Not a resident. 12:45 11 327 Q. That that child was able to articulate a complaint of 12 sexual abuse? 13 A. Well, is there anything to be read into the fact that? 14 I have never thought about that one. I don't know. If 15 I can go back. What happen there was the two children 12:46 16 were out with -- I am getting confused now with who 17 they were out with. Myles Brady, was it? The two 18 children were out with Myles Brady, they came back, he 19 told the St. Joseph's child to go and was it make a cup 20 of tea and do something and in that space of time, two 12:46 21 or three minutes, he assaulted the boy. Now it was the 22 other little lad who picked up on it, wasn't it, that 23 something had happened? And it was he who went and 24 made the complaint. Was it because it was an outside 25 child? I really don't know. I have never thought 12:46 26 about it. 27 MS. McGOLDRICK: Thank you Sister. 28 29 END OF QUESTIONING OF SR. UNA O'NEILL BY THE COMMISSION 94 1 2 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr. Butler. 4 5 6 7 SR. UNA O'NEILL WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 8 MR. BUTLER. 9 10 328 Q. MR. BUTLER: Thank you Chairman. Just on 12:47 11 that, is it your 12 recollection that the complaint to Sr. Conception came 13 from the St. Joseph's boy? 14 A. It did, yes. 15 329 Q. Still on that, can you just remind the Commission how 12:47 16 quickly Sr. Joseph Conception reacted to that 17 complaint? 18 A. As in the first one with David Murray she reacted 19 almost immediately once she understood that something 20 serious had to be done. So her reaction to that was 12:47 21 almost immediate. 22 330 Q. You are talking about hours, not days? 23 A. I am, indeed, yes. Likewise in the case of David 24 Murray. 25 331 Q. Her first reaction was to call the Garda who had done 12:47 26 voluntary work in the school? 27 A. That's right. 28 332 Q. And she and he traveled to Dublin? 29 A. That's right. 95 1 333 Q. Had a conversation with Mr. Brady? 2 A. That's right. 3 334 Q. And dismissed him on the spot? 4 A. That's right, yes. And, in fact, he made a half page 5 report to his superintendent on the matter. But as no 12:48 6 formal complaint had been made it couldn't be pursued 7 and Sister was never asked to make a statement. 8 335 Q. Just looking at the speed with which Sr. Joseph's 9 Conception reacted once she got a serious complaint of 10 what she understood to be physical abuse in relation 12:48 11 Mr. Murray. How quickly did she react there do you 12 know? 13 A. Within the same day. That evening she went to 14 Mr. Murray. 15 336 Q. And dismissed him? 12:48 16 A. And dismissed him. 17 337 Q. On this same theme, Sister, the question of how Sisters 18 in St. Joseph's responded to concerns or worries 19 expressed by children and not exploring them, it was 20 put to you by the Chairman in terms of there being a 12:49 21 lack of skill in getting to the bottom of what was 22 wrong. 23 A. Yes. 24 338 Q. In terms of childcare skills -- they are very developed 25 now we know in terms of exploring these matters -- the 12:49 26 childcare courses that you refer to, which members of 27 your Order went to from 1948 onwards, have you seen 28 anything in relation to the content of those courses? 29 A. I have, yes. 96 1 339 Q. They are in discovered documentation, and we can send 2 additional copies, but is there anything in the 3 description of the content of the courses dealing with 4 sexual abuse or the safeguards to be taken in relation 5 to possible sexual abuse of children in your care? 12:50 6 A. Not only that, but there is no reference to physical 7 abuse in any of those courses. In fact, I think during 8 the course of the private hearings evidence was given 9 to that effect, that in any of the courses at the time 10 there was nothing on that subject. 12:50 11 340 Q. That was in relation to the new what was regarded as a 12 very progressive course instigated in Kilkenny? 13 A. That's right, yes. 14 341 Q. Which Mr. Murray graduated from? 15 A. That's right. If punishment was mentioned in that 12:50 16 course, for instance, it was said it was in relation to 17 the families, not in relation to the institution. 18 342 Q. Apart from the course that the Walthamstowe Sisters 19 went to and the Kilkenny course, did the Order take any 20 other steps to educate Sisters in childcare who were 12:50 21 going to work in St. Joseph's? 22 A. Yes. A number of them did the course in Cork and the 23 course in Waterford. Now, there were also, in relation 24 to question asked by the Commission's counsel, there 25 were a number of short courses. In fact, I have the 12:51 26 timetable, which I found recently in the discovery, for 27 the one that was held in Carysfort, and Anna McCabe was 28 at it. There is a timetable for everything that was 29 dealt with in that and there was no mention in that of 97 1 anything to do with punishment or talk of physical or 2 sexual abuse. 3 343 Q. Is it the same Dr. McCabe who wrote the report in 4 relation to Mr. BLANK's abuse? 5 A. It was, indeed. There is a little press from the 12:51 6 paper, there is a little bit in it that lists that she 7 was there and various other people. 8 344 Q. It was commented on that Sr. Joseph Conception had not 9 undergone any formal childcare training? 10 A. That's right. 12:52 11 345 Q. Would she have been a minority of the Sisters working 12 in childcare in St. Joseph's in that regard or not? 13 A. At that time she would have been in a minority. In a 14 curious way, I suppose, she herself was head of the 15 family and she was considered absolutely ideal for that 12:52 16 position, which in fact in me ways proved to be the 17 case. 18 346 Q. Am I correct in saying that she had a number of jobs in 19 St. Joseph's before becoming Resident Manager? 20 A. She was, she was in charge of a group herself for many 12:52 21 years before she actually became Resident Manager. 22 347 Q. In terms of her position and, again, the failure to 23 uncover what had happened to these sexually abused 24 children, I just want to draw your attention to a 25 passage. I will just read it to you, there is no need 12:53 26 to refer to it, from Mr. Connellan's evidence in his 27 High Court case. This is what was recited by the 28 Judge. I just want to put it to you to see if it is 29 consistent with reports you have had from other 98 1 children at St. Joseph's. This is Mr. Justice 2 O'Donovan in his judgment at page 14, he quotes Mr. 3 Connellan as saying: 4 "Indeed, he expressed great gratitude 5 to Sr. Conception for all the help she 12:53 had given to him after he left 6 St. Joseph's and he said "she is probably one of the best people who has 7 ever walked the earth". He said her only fault was that she was gullible, 8 in the sense that she believed what people employed by her were telling 9 her", and accordingly Mr. Connellan never told her about the things that 10 had happened to him. As he said "Sr. 12:54 Conception would not have understood"." 11 12 He's referring to various forms of abuse, including 13 sexual abuse. 14 A. Yes. 15 348 Q. How does that compare with other descriptions of 12:54 16 experiences? 17 A. I think that would be fairly accurate if terms of other 18 descriptions. There are those who would want to 19 believe that she knew and did nothing but they are few, 20 very few, in a tiny minority I would suggest. Anyone 12:54 21 who knows the woman and watches her now with these very 22 same children would know that their relationship with 23 her goes beyond their belief or the suffering that they 24 have undergone at the hands of those men. 25 349 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with 12:55 26 Mr. Connellan's evidence as 27 to Sr. Conception? 28 A. Naivety. Do I agree with his evidence? I mightn't 29 express it in those terms. 99 1 350 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me go on to what I am 2 really concerned about. If 3 she was the sort of person who couldn't have been told 4 about sex abuse understood the question occurs to me 5 whether she should have been in charge of an 12:55 6 institution for so long? 7 A. Yes, but the comment could also be made who would have 8 understood at that time? 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, specifically 10 Mr. Connellan is saying I 12:55 11 wouldn't have complained because she wouldn't have 12 understood, which is important. 13 A. It is important. 14 351 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If he says somebody is 15 very gullible, or whatever, 12:55 16 and wouldn't have been able to -- but that does raise a 17 big question. 18 A. If you put it in the context of everything else that 19 has been said I think maybe it finds its place within a 20 broader context. 12:56 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have to bear in mind 22 that Mr. Connellan's 23 evidence is being recorded and he's give ago few, and 24 let's be realistic. I am asking a more general 25 question. You couldn't have such a person in charge of 12:56 26 a childcare centre. You couldn't have a person who was 27 the sort who couldn't be told about something, who 28 wouldn't understand, isn't that right? 29 A. Absolutely right. But I don't think -- I mean Sr. 100 1 Conception is an intelligent woman. She has shown 2 extraordinary. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Connellan is doing his 4 best for her and he is 5 obviously very fond of her. 6 A. He is, yes. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: And he's aware of the fact 8 that somebody is going to 9 be suggesting that she did know and he's doing his best 10 for her, perhaps. 12:56 11 MR. BUTLER: But perhaps not doing her 12 any favours in the long 13 run. 14 A. Overstating. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps he is opening 12:57 16 another door. 17 MR. BUTLER: What I was going to move on 18 to in that very context was 19 really to ask you in terms of her instant grasp of the 20 seriousness of sexual abuse when it was put to her in 12:57 21 terms that were clear to her. 22 A. Yes. 23 352 Q. Is that suggestion of gullibility and lack of awareness 24 of the absolute unacceptability, is that consistent 25 with the charge of gullibility? 12:57 26 A. Oh no, I don't think she was a gullible woman at all. 27 I think that at that time the language wasn't there, 28 nor indeed was the understanding. I think one other 29 witness at the -- oh, I better not talk about the 101 1 private hearings. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, wherever we go there is 3 difficulty. There is a 4 real issue between people, and I think it is reflect in 5 the High Court cases, Mr. Butler, in fairness, there is 12:57 6 a real issue as to the state of knowledge and it could 7 easily be very unfair, particularly to Sr. Conception, 8 to be getting a half version of what might have been 9 the case, what might not have been the case when in 10 fact we have a full version. It is something we have 12:58 11 to worry about, we have to try to reach conclusions to 12 the extent that it is necessary and it is an important 13 feature of this area of St. Joseph's history. 14 MR. BUTLER: I don't want to stray into 15 submissions now, but the 12:58 16 point really I am trying to put across by this evidence 17 is that whilst people's perceptions of her over a long 18 time were very well placed to make these assessments, 19 while they are of great importance of equal importance 20 at least is her own actions when confronted with 12:58 21 serious allegations. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which is a fair submission 23 and point to make. 24 A. Absolutely. 25 353 Q. MR. BUTLER: Could I pass on from that 12:59 26 Sr. Una to something 27 Mr. Maher raised in relation to Dr. McQuade's 28 involvement and the identification of certain numbers 29 of disturbed children in his 1973 December letter and 102 1 that being followed up by the Department of Education. 2 Can you assist the Committee in giving some sort of 3 picture of the psychiatric supports that were arranged 4 for children in St. Joseph's? In other words, did they 5 ever see a psychiatrist or what role did any 12:59 6 psychiatrist have in looking after the children's well 7 being? 8 A. Well, just to give one instance is the fact that she 9 herself would have paid for a psychologist or 10 psychiatrist to come in and do sessions with the 12:59 11 children, until she was told by the Department that she 12 should be using their psychiatrist. 13 354 Q. This is Dr. Vincent Moloney 14 A. Dr. Vincent Moloney was a regular visitor. She trusted 15 his advice and he had very high regard, as he heard in 13:00 16 private hearings, for her and for her capability in 17 terms of the institution. So he often called in and he 18 often spoke. She would refer to boys to him. And we 19 do have the reports in the boys individual -- I think 20 we sent some of them in actually to Commission, of 13:00 21 their interviews with him. 22 355 Q. That arrangement, for reasons we needn't go into, came 23 to an end. 24 A. It did. 25 356 Q. On the advice of the Department of Education? 13:00 26 A. Of Mr. Granville, yes. 27 357 Q. Thereafter there was still psychiatric support, I 28 think? 29 A. There was. If you read through the daily diaries there 103 1 was. I mean every effort was made between social 2 workers, psychiatrists and the care assistants to deal 3 with ever aspect of the children's psychological 4 health. 5 13:00 6 7 MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much. 8 9 END OF EXAMINATION OF SR. UNA O'NEILL BY MR. BUTLER 10 13:01 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now, Mr. Lowe, 12 have you anything to ask. 13 14 SR. UNA O'NEILL WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 15 THE COMMISSION 13:01 16 17 358 Q. MR. LOWE: I have just one question. 18 I read Dr. Paul McQuade's 19 letter in a very different way from the way that 20 Mr. Maher read it. It ends with the sentence "if I can 13:01 21 assist you" or something like that, I don't have a copy 22 of the letter. But it struck me that the whole letter 23 was describing things as he found it and was giving her 24 ammunition in order to get additional resources, which 25 is how she in fact used the letter, because she 13:01 26 appeared to have sent it forward and the Department 27 said capitation doesn't allow for extra money for 28 disturbed children? 29 A. Yes. 104 1 359 Q. MR. LOWE: If I am right, he is 2 describing a set of 3 circumstances where 80 children, 32 were disturbed, and 4 that was not peculiar to December 1973 but had attained 5 beforehand. This is my question: If that was the 13:01 6 case, how long was this kind of intake common to the 7 children coming into the school? 8 A. Could you just remind me what the date of that letter 9 was? 10 360 Q. MR. LOWE: It was 12 December, 1973 I 13:02 11 think. 12 A. I link it always with the letter that both the teacher, 13 who also gave evidence for before the Commission, and 14 Dr. Birch wrote where the both of them talk about the 15 degree of disturbance in the children and the fact that 13:02 16 there had been a shift in the kind of children being 17 admitted. I suspect that in the earlier years the 18 children who were admitted came from situations where 19 maybe a parent had died, where a parent couldn't care 20 for the children, where the ISPCC felt there was some 13:02 21 evidence of neglect, or whatever. In the later years, 22 especially the Health Board children, they would have 23 been taken into St. Joseph's because of serious home 24 disturbances. Now that covers a multitude. So, I 25 would suspect that somewhere around there the kind 13:03 26 of -- now, I mean the same kind of children continued 27 to come but that there was a large element of children 28 who were quite disturbed when they actually came in. 29 361 Q. MR. LOWE: We are talking from what 105 1 date? 2 A. Let me see, I am no use with dates at all. 3 MR. LOWE: 60's? I only want an 4 approximation. 5 A. When did the Health Board take over? 13:03 6 MR. LOWE: 70. 7 A. 70. Yes, you see you have all that thing in 8 the...(INTERJECTION). 9 362 Q. MR. LOWE: The question really is if 10 this had been the situation 13:03 11 for some time, why was it not recognised and pushed 12 through earlier? 13 A. But I think it was recognised maybe not in that 14 professional language, but it was recognised in the 15 efforts, for instance, to get extra tutors to the help 13:03 16 the children. 17 363 Q. MR. LOWE: Was it raised at the 18 Resident Manager's 19 meetings, and so on? 20 A. I wouldn't have any notion, I have never read any of 13:04 21 those. That would be interesting. I don't know. I 22 don't have access to those. 23 MR. LOWE: Okay, thank you. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now Ms. Shanley? 25 MS. SHANLEY: I have just two brief 13:04 26 questions. Firstly, you 27 have spoken a lot about the language that the children 28 would have had available to them to explain what has 29 happened to them. Have you seen Dr. Anna McCabe's 106 1 reports from her interviews with the children in 1954? 2 A. I have. 3 364 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Would you accept that they 4 had absolutely no 5 difficulty explaining what was done to them? 13:04 6 A. Yes, and it is in very personal language. 7 365 Q. MS. SHANLEY: It is. It is quite 8 explicit and quite 9 unambiguous? 10 A. It is. 13:04 11 366 Q. MS. SHANLEY: So certainly in 1954 there 12 was no difficulty in 13 explaining sexual abuse? 14 A. But remember that these were girls talking to Anna 15 McCabe. You know, boys talking to Sr. Conception, I 13:04 16 mean the language -- and when I talk about language I 17 am talking about the use of phrases like "sexual 18 abuse", like "pedophile" and all of those. 19 367 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Well even not that, but to 20 actually explain what was 13:05 21 being done. 22 A. Sure, sure. 23 368 Q. MS. SHANLEY: I am just putting it to you 24 that the language was 25 there, whether it was used or not, the language was 13:05 26 certainly there in 1954. 27 A. Yes, I agree. 28 369 Q. MS. SHANLEY: The other question I want 29 to ask you, and it is just 107 1 to get back to something you said earlier on at the 2 very beginning, that you had a difficulty apologising 3 for what had occurred in Kilkenny. You said too that 4 you believed that the responsibility for what happened 5 belonged with the abusers. 13:05 6 A. Primarily. 7 370 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Primarily. So you would 8 accept some responsibility? 9 I am not clear about this. 10 A. Sure. 13:05 11 371 Q. MS. SHANLEY: You made the analogy with a 12 parent and you said that if 13 a child had been abused in a home and the parent 14 wouldn't apologise to the child. 15 A. Yes. 13:06 16 372 Q. MS. SHANLEY: I am not so sure you are 17 right. I think if a child 18 is abused by -- if a parent lets a child down in anyway 19 I think it is part of the responsible parent, of the a 20 caring parent. 13:06 21 A. Well, obviously I am not a parent. But I some how 22 can't imagine a parent saying I apologise to you for 23 what happened. I think that a parent would take the 24 child in his or her arms and I am so sorry for what 25 happened. 13:06 26 373 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Is that not an apology? 27 A. I presume it was, but it was phrased in a way that gave 28 me to understand there was a difference. 29 374 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Then would you be happy to 108 1 say you are sorry? 2 A. Absolutely, deeply sorry. And we have said it on four 3 occasions, we have said it in public statements. 4 375 Q. MS. SHANLEY: And you would share in the 5 general apology of the 13:06 6 Orders that were made on behalf of the State and then 7 the general apologies that were made? 8 A. In terms of all that happened in every home, including 9 non-religious ones, I would share in that apology. But 10 I would not be aligning myself with other particular 13:06 11 Orders who might have offered public apologies. They 12 did that because they felt that was what they had to 13 do, I presume. 14 376 Q. MS. SHANLEY: And you don't feel that 15 this is what you should do 13:07 16 in this situation? 17 A. I feel that in our particular situation there is a 18 difference, in that the abuse was primarily perpetrated 19 by people in our employment. If I felt that it was 20 Sisters who had perpetrated sexual abuse I would be -- 13:07 21 I don't know that I would even be here. But it would 22 be a different situation. 23 MS. SHANLEY: Okay, thank you. 24 25 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF SR. UNA O'NEILL BY THE 13:07 26 COMMISSION 27 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good, thank you very 29 much. All right, we will 109 1 sit again tomorrow at the same time for St. Patrick's. 2 3 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 1:07 P.M. 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 29 110