Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 2

Direct Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Windle Turley
Second of Three Parts
July 1, 1997: Afternoon

[BishopAccountability.org obtained this transcript from from the Web site www.wearethechurch.org, where a much larger sample of the trial transcript is posted. The Web master of that site asks that you contact him if information identifying a victim or a victim's family has been overlooked in the redaction process. He also observes that "there are many typing errors in the following document, including errors in dates such as 1996 when the date should be 1986. This is the condition of the court transcript document as received." For ease of reading, the staff at BishopAccountability.org has removed the line numbers from the Grahmann transcript, put the page numbers in square brackets, and grouped the Q&A exchanges. We have made no other changes.]

Q. And you know, don't you, Bishop, that there
wasn't any truth-telling at the churches about why Rudy Kos
was sent away.
A. I don't agree with that.

Q. The weekend after he was sent away, are you
not aware that the Diocese's Blue Ribbon Committee
instructed Father Williams at St. John's to read the
resignation letter Father Rudy Kos that said he was sent
away because he was stressed out?
A. That was a task of the Blue Ribbon
Committee.

Q. Are you aware that they told Father Williams
to read that?
A. No, I'm not.

Q. And that the Blue Ribbon Committee knew it
wasn't true. When they told Father Williams to read it,
they what why he had been sent away; are you aware of that?
A. No.

Q. Are you aware that he read it and that he
told us --
A. No.

Q. -- in this courtroom, a few weeks ago, that
he subsequently found out it wasn't true and it was a lie [7655]
when he read it?
A. That was his opinion.

Q. There was no effort made at that time, was
there, Bishop, no search and rescue to try to find other
victims, no intensive effort made, in the fall of 1992, to
try to find Rudy Kos' victims; isn't that correct?
A. I'm not aware of a search and rescue.

Q. In fact, it is even worse than that, I
subject to you, Bishop, in some churches, such as at All
Saints, when this suit was filed in May of 1993 there were
outright denials there were maybe any victims; are you
aware of that?
A. No.

Q. You're not aware that Monsignor Rehkemper
got up in front of the pulpit, read a message at
All Saints, in May of '93 in which he said, "These are mere
allegations", mere allegations, at a time when the Diocese
knew, without question, there were victims and that Rudy
Kos was an abuser.
A. Perhaps they were still allegations at that
time.

Q. Well, I don't think so, Bishop. Don't you
remember, we got this straight, Rudy Kos came forward and
admitted he abused "John Doe #1" in September of 1992 --
A. Perhaps -- [7656]

Q. -- this lawsuit was filed in May of 1993,
and in May of 1993 Monsignor Rehkemper, former number two
in the Diocese who resigned just a month before all of this
broke, stood up in the pulpit and said, "These are mere
allegations"?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. If he said that, that wasn't true, was it?
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, I again object to the
characterization of that evidence. That is referring to
something a little different, relative to the lawsuit. And
it is different.
THE COURT: Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Jury, please recall the evidence and the testimony to the
best of your ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) In fact, if -- if he got
up and said, "These are mere allegations", that wouldn't
have been correct, would it, because you folks knew by
then, we're not dealing with just allegations, we're
dealing with actual, sexual abuse.
MR. MATHIS: Objection. That mischaracterizes what
Father Rehkemper said. Allegations relate to the lawsuit,
not to something that "John Doe #1" said.
THE COURT: Okay --

MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor, I object to the nature
of these objection. Your Honor knows very well they're
7657
improper in a trial. Mr. Mathis loves to give these
objection in depositions, we're at trial.
THE COURT: Okay. I think he is entitled to.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please recall the
evidence and the testimony to the best of your ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, if somebody got up
in May, somebody who was -- had been an officer of the
Diocese until a month before all of this broke, somebody
who says he knew that in the fall there was a victim and
there was admitted abuse by Father Kos, and eight months
later he stands up in the pulpit and says, "These are mere
allegations", what he is saying is not true is it? They
are not mere allegations, they are fact.
A. Perhaps he did not know.

Q. If he had known, then what he said was not
true, was it?
A. If he had known, precisely.

Q. If he had known.
Well, Bishop, let's see what you said the
same month, in May of 1993, when you knew. You issued a
statement that month, didn't you? May 25th, 1993, a
statement concerning an allegation of sexual abuse of
children, statement by Bishop Charles Grahmann.
You remember issuing this statement, don't
you? [7658]
Sir?
A. Yes.

Q. And you start off -- I'm not going to read
the whole thing, "I am deeply saddened to hear the
allegations of several young men who were victimized."
Bishop, I want you to count with me the
number of times in this statement that you use the word
"allegations", when you knew that it was, in fact, known
that it is no longer an allegation, it is a fact Father Kos
had sexually abused young boys. There is one on the first
line, right there (indicating), agreed?
A. Yes.

Q. You count them for me. Do you mind, Bishop?
How many -- that is one.
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection. If we're
going to do this, can we have an instruction to the jury
that allegations --

MR. TURLEY: I don't want to -- I don't want
to --
MR. MATHIS: Can we approach the bench, then?
THE COURT: You bet.

MR. MATHIS: Can we approach the bench, then?
THE COURT: Do you want Marsha?
MR. MATHIS: Yes, please.
(Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
the hearing of the jury, as follows:) [7659]

MR. TURLEY: He is --
MR. MATHIS: Let me --
THE COURT: Make your objection.

MR. MATHIS: Let me make the objection, to have
it on the record.
My problem is with the word "allegations", because
allegations, when referring to the lawsuit, includes not
only the allegations that the abuse took place, but all of
the various other allegations in the lawsuit, like the
Diocese was negligent, all of these others things,
conspiracy allegations and those. So if he is going to
question him about what he means by allegations, he needs
to separate out when he is referring to the allegations of
the abuse involving the individuals that were known to have
come forward then. And in context, it is only "John Doe #1".
The others came forward to the Diocese by filing
the lawsuit, and not otherwise.
MR. TURLEY: That is appropriate for
cross-examination -- for his cross --

MR. MATHIS: Well, no, because your question is
misconstruing --
MR. TURLEY: Not at all.

MR. MATHIS: -- the evidence and the documents.
MR. TURLEY: Not a slight bit. And we would -- [7660]

MR. MATHIS: It needs to be clear what you're
asking.
THE COURT: May I see your report that you're
working from? May I take a look at it?
MR. TURLEY: Yes.

MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, that is referring to the
lawsuit as a whole. This is a 4thing, if nothing else,
relative to using it in that term.
THE COURT: (Court reading)

MR. TURLEY: We talked about this with
Dr. Kliman, Your Honor, when he said if a -- if somebody
got up and said that a member of the -- parish that these
are mere accusations, how hurtful it would be to the boys;
do you remember him testifying on that?
MR. MATHIS: Accusation refers to many different
things when you're talking about the lawsuit as a whole --

MR. TURLEY: He can show that.
MR. MATHIS: -- that is why it is so
inflammatory. It needs to be within an instruction. He
can't --

MR. TURLEY: This man just testified if somebody
said these are mere allegations and he knew better, than
that was false. He said these are mere allegations.
MR. MATHIS: But the allegations -- that's not
what he is saying. The allegations are referring to [7661]
lawsuit as a whole. That includes --

MR. TURLEY: You coach him on that tonight and
ask him about it tomorrow.
MS. DEMAREST: The --

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Windle: Are you
opposed to use the allegations of sexual abuse, the
connotation of it with respect to this?
MR. TURLEY: Well, this is a statement that he
issued, Judge.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. TURLEY: I want to show the jury what he
said and how it comes across in the way that he said it.

THE COURT: I'm saying -- hang on a second. I
think it does here, but I think there could be a question
as to the way -- Mr. Mathis' objection that have to do with
the allegations of the lawsuit.
Do you have any objection to phrasing this with the
alleged sexual abuse?
MR. TURLEY: Well, I don't know how I could do
that, Judge.

THE COURT: Not with respect to this, but within
to your question. Think about it for two seconds.
MR. TURLEY: Well, I think that is what I was
doing.

THE COURT: I think it was, too. I just want to [7662]
say, why don't you use a clear-up question to clear up it
up?
I'll note your objection. See if can you clear it
up.
MR. MATHIS: Okay. That will work.

MS. DEMAREST: We'll have to come back and do it
again.
THE COURT: That's okay.
MR. MATHIS: If there is --
Mr. Turley, come here just a second.
I don't know how he is going to, as he says, "clean
it up". You know, I don't want to object every time. I
just want it clear, because it is leaving the -- a totally
improper inference. That's why I think an instruction is
in order.

MR. TURLEY: This is appropriate for cross.
THE COURT: It can be cleaned up on cross. I
asked you to see if you could do it now.

MR. MATHIS: My objection is sustained?
THE COURT: Your objection is sustained.

(Whereupon the sidebar was ended, and thereafter
the following was had, in the hearing of the jury, as
follows:)

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, I want to continue
discussing with you about the statement you issued on May [7663]
25th, 1993. And to put things in the proper perspective,
this statement that we're talking about had to do, as you
say right here (indicating) in the very first sentence,
where you say, "I'm deeply saddened to hear of the
allegations that several young men were victimized by one
of our priests, when they were minors."
Now, the allegations that we're talking
about here are sexual allegations, allegations of sexual
abuse.
A. Sexual misconduct.

Q. That's right.
Now, count with me, Bishop, the number of
times you refer to this as allegations. There is one, two,
three, and down here you said, "The accusers", that is a --
kind of a sideways to become an allegation, but we wouldn't
count that one. There are three on that page.
And then over here on this page, there is
allegations again. And then you refer to them as
allegations again. That is five times in this statement
that you refer to these -- I think it is six, because on
the last page you do it again. You see on the last page,
here with me. You say, "This alleged abuse". Six times
in this statement that you've read, yourself, an issue
published in May of 1993, you referred to these as mere
allegations; do you not? [7664]
A. Allegations aren't merely.

Q. You refer to them as allegations; do you
not?
A. Yes. That would either something to it --

Q. You knew -- you knew at the time you typed,
dictated, whatever you did and published this statement and
made video copies and sent to all of the television
stations in north Texas; you did that, too, didn't you,
where you read this statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember?
A. Yes.

Q. At the time you did that -- and you also
published it in the Texas Catholic, same statement --
Where is it?
Well, did you that, didn't you, Bishop?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, I've got a copy of it here.
MR. TURLEY: Sylvia, could you find it?
MS. DEMAREST: I don't know.
THE COURT: We've got one, Bishop, believe me.
Trust me. We'll find it in a minute.
But, anyway, you published in the Texas
Catholic, issued this press release and issued a videotape
making these statements. And six times in this statement [7665]
you said, "These are", in effect, "mere accusations of sex
abuse", didn't you?
A. Allegations of sexual misconduct.

Q. That's right.
And you knew, Bishop, with all due respect,
you knew on May 25th, 1993, when you did that, that Rudy
Kos had admitted -- had admitted that he had sexually
abused one boy by then, for sure. You knew about the
"John Doe #1" boy?
A. Yes.

Q. And probably, by that time, you knew about
others?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Bishop, did it occur to you when you put
this in the context of mere allegations, allegations of
sexual abuse, alleged abuse, that there might be some young
man at some church someplace that had, in fact, been
sexually abused by Rudy Kos, trying to search his soul as
to whether he has the courage to step forward and deal with
this terrible issue that has fallen into his life, and he
hears her pastor get up and say, "There's are mere
allegations", has it occurred to you that that might be a
really turn off for that young man, knowing that he is
going to have to prove his case --
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, assuming -- [7666]
MR. TURLEY: -- as opposed to a situation where
the church came forward and said, "There has been sexual
abuse"?

MR. MATHIS: All right. Let me renew my other
objection, because allegation, in that context, is
referring to things other than just the abuse. It's the
lawsuit. And that is a different thing.
MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor --

MR. MATHIS: The question is unfairly vague --
MS. DEMAREST: I object, there is no -- there is
no evidentiary objection in that objection.

MR. TURLEY: And he just goes on, making these
jury arguments every time he gets up here --
THE COURT: Well, his objection is: vague to the
sentence. And because of the prior to objection, I'm going
to sustain it.
Rephrase it, if you don't mind.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, did it occur to
you when you issued these statements and published them in
the Texas Catholic and had them issued in your churches and
put them on television, where you said, "This alleged
abuse", talking about sexual misconduct of Rudy Kos, that
there might be some young man searching his heart to see if
he should come forward and deal with this issue and
wrestling with the issue of whether anybody would believe [7667]
him and deciding he would have to prove his case against a
priest in the church and deciding maybe he couldn't do it
as opposed to what would have happened if you had told the
truth and said, "At least one young man has come forward,
and we know there was sexual abuse that took place"? It
would have been quite a different situation for that young
man, searching his heart, wouldn't it?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Bishop, let me ask you a few questions about
this St. Luke's Institute report, if I could.
You swore in your deposition that the --
that you spoke to somebody at the St. Luke's Institute.
A. Yes.

Q. And you said in your deposition that that
doctor that you talked to had reached the same conclusion
that he had written in the written report that he sent you;
do you remember?
A. The conclusion came before the written
report.

Q. Well, you told me, when I took your
deposition, on page 73, that they reached exactly the same
conclusions contained in their report.
A. That's correct.

Q. That's what he told you, --
A. That's correct. [7668]

Q. -- what you said he told you when you talked
to him on the phone.
A. That's correct.

Q. And you know, Bishop, that that report is
very inconclusive, that it recommends some things still be
done. And it didn't reach a final conclusion as to whether
Father Kos was a pedophile.
A. There is no litmus test to do that.

Q. You know --
A. There doesn't exist one.

Q. You know, do you not, Bishop -- listen to
me, that that report was inconclusive, they did not
conclude that Father Kos was not a pedophile?
A. They didn't --

Q. They recommended some other tests be done;
do you remember that?
A. They did not conclude that there was
evidence of sexual abuse.

Q. You told me, when I took your deposition,
that they told you, "This man is not a pedophile"; do you
remember that?
A. That's right.

Q. That's what you told me in your deposition.
A. That's right.

Q. You know now that that is not true, that [7669]
that they didn't tell you that.
A. No, they didn't tell me he was a pedophile,
but there was no evidence of sexual misconduct, because I
asked the question about pedophile.

Q. But you told me, in your deposition, they
said he is not a pedophile.
A. Well, that was the summary of their --
because I asked the question, "Is he a pedophile?" And
they answered and said they found no evidence, from their
tests, of sexual misconduct. That is the answer to my
question, "Is he a pedophile?"

Q. Yes. And, Bishop, remember, we talked in
your deposition about this? They told you that they had
not ruled out the fact that he might be a pedophile?
A. He didn't tell me that.

Q. He didn't.
You read the report when you got it, didn't
you?
A. He didn't tell me that.

Q. Did you read the report?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Contrary to your sworn deposition, it did
not conclude that there were no other questionable sexual
or psychological problems, did it?
A. There was over psychological problems. [7670]

Q. And you testified under your oath, in your
deposition, that they told you there were no sex problems.
A. They told me their tests did not evidence
any -- any-- any sexual misconduct.

Q. And what they told you, you say, is what is
in the -- in the written report; is that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Bishop, would it surprise you if they -- if
they reference in that report to several matters that may
be very serious sexual problems?
A. It could be. I don't know that.

Q. You're not suggesting to us that Dr. Montana
told you one thing on the phone and then wrote something
else in the written report that he sent you, are you?
A. I don't think he would.

Q. Bishop, did you read this report when you
received it --
A. Yes, I did.

Q. -- from St. Luke's? It told you a lot about
Rudy Kos, didn't it?
A. In high-tech language.

Q. Well, not all of it is high-tech. I want
to show you some that is not high-tech. St. Luke's
Institute report, June 17, 1992, Most Reverend Charles B.
Grahmann, Bishop. [7671]
And, by the way, they sent this to 39
Lemmon Avenue, didn't they?
A. Yes.

Q. That is the same place that Mrs. Allen had
sent her letters, didn't they?
A. I don't know.

Q. All right.
Now this is -- let's look at what they told
you. Just look at a few things that you learned about Rudy
Kos when you read this report. You learned, for example,
that several sources -- the reports from several sources
that he was engaging in inappropriate behavior with
adolescent boys.
A. Yes, we gave him those reports.

Q. That is certainly a hint of some possible
sexual misconduct right there at the get-go; isn't it?
A. We gave him the reports.

Q. And then also they said, "Several people
have expressed concerns that boys, age twelve to fourteen,
have repeatedly slept in Father Kos' room."
So you knew in June of 1992 that there is
further confirmation that young boys have been sleeping in
Father Kos' room.
A. We gave them that information.

Q. That's right. There is no question but that [7672]
you knew that?
A. We gave them the information.

Q. You knew it.
A. We gave them the information. We had to do
it -- we had to know it; otherwise, we couldn't give them
the --

Q. I'm asking you if Bishop Grahmann knew it.
A. Yes.

Q. And you also knew, did you not, that
"Father Kos admits, he admits that frequently boys would
sleep over, either in his room or a guest room, he admits
that several times one boy has ended up sleeping overnight
with Father Kos and sleeping with him in his bed."
In June of 1992 you knew, without question,
Father Kos had been sleeping in the bed with little boys,
didn't you?
A. That's the information we had.

Q. You knew it. Bishop Grahmann knew it?
A. That is the information I had.

Q. Now, Bishop, you also knew -- that is not
high-tech stuff; is it, sir?
A. Please?

Q. This is not high-tech language, yet, is it?
A. No.

Q. Okay. [7673]
A. Because I gave it to them.

Q. I understand.
Now, Bishop, let's see what else -- what
else.
Father Kos, you learned, when you read this
report in June of '92, he says that, "Originally the males
who were age sixteen to eighteen would come over Tuesdays
after school and would decide to stay over that night so
they could be at mass on Wednesday morning."
In other words, you knew in June of 1992,
Bishop, that Father Rudy Kos was using a specific church
function, Wednesday morning mass, in order to accommodate
little boys in the rectory overnight the night before,
didn't you?
A. Yes. Father Kos gave them the information.

Q. And you learned of it as soon as you got
this report.
A. From the report, that's right.

Q. And you also learned that Father Kos, right
here (indicating), "Father Kos admits that the adolescents
would stay overnight at the rectory and on several
occasions sleep with him in his bed"?
A. That's correct.

Q. In June of 1992 you have another
confirmation that Father Kos is sleeping with little boys. [7674]
A. That's correct.

Q. And also, right here (indicating), you
learned that, "Father Kos states that he does not believe
that he was ever ordered to not have young people in the
rectory, until the latter part of 1991."
When you read that, you knew Father Kos was
lying, didn't you, because you had ordered him in
nineteen--
A. That's right.

Q. -- early 1991.
A. Right. I ordered him in 1991.

Q. And by then surely you knew that Monsignor
Rehkemper, and many others, had ordered it in the preceding
years.
A. He says he does not believe that he was ever
ordered.

Q. Yes.
A. That is subject to --

Q. Well --
A. -- you know.

Q. There is no question but that you told
him --
A. That's right, in 1991.

Q. -- not to do it. You told him, yourself,
not to do it. [7675]
A. That is exactly correct.

Q. So you got Father Kos in another lie that
you know he is lying, right here (indicating), don't you?
Sir?
A. That's correct.

Q. So when you found out he is lying to the
people up at St. Luke's Institute, did not a little alarm
go off in your head that said, "Maybe I'm dealing with a
liar"?
A. Well, I'm not sure, because he acknowledged
that in 1991 I told him, he acknowledges that. But he
said he doesn't believe he was ordered before that time.

Q. All right, Bishop.
Go to the next page with me.
A. (witness complies)?

Q. Also, Father Kos states, right here
(indicating), "that the last time he slept with a boy in
his bed was in November of 1991."
Now, did you believe that?
A. I have no way to prove that.

Q. Now let's see what else you learned from
this report when you received it. St. Luke's Institute
told you, "It is notable that Father Kos has had recurrent
problems with hepatitis."
They didn't just say he had had it, they [7676]
said it was notable, meaning it is significant; do you
agreement with that?
A. It state it there, yes.

Q. And the types of hepatitis they describe
down here, in the next paragraph, "Father Kos had
reportedly had and recovered from Hepatitis A, B, and
Hepatitus C has given him particular difficulty."
In June of 1992 you knew that Father Kos, a
suspected child sex abuser, has been plagued with Hepatitis
A, B and C, didn't you?
A. Yes. It states it in the letter.

Q. And you knew, did you not, Bishop, based on
your ministry, that Hepatitis C is a type of hepatitis that
is drug -- can be drug transmitted, through intravenous
usage or sexually transmitted?
A. I'm not familiar with that.

Q. Let's see what else you learned when you got
this report in June of 1992. This is what they told you
about your pastor. "There also indications that
Father Kos may sometimes" -- this is a really important
part, Bishop, so I'm going to read it slowly. "There are
also indications that Father Kos may sometimes
conceptualize information incorrectly and, thus, is his
decision-making can be faulty. This make particularly
relevant as to how Father Kos conceptualizes the impact of [7677]
his relationships with teenagers with regard to the
perceptions of others."
When you read that paragraph was it not
crystal clear to you, Bishop, that the St. Luke's Institute
where you had sent this man for analysis, had said to you,
"He may suffer from faulty decision-making, particularly
with respect to :children". That was pretty plain, wasn't
it, Bishop?
A. Well, his perception, his conceptualization.

Q. That's right.
Go on down to the last paragraph. What else
did they tell you? They told you in June of 1992, "There
is some evidence" -- "There is some evidence that there are
problems with Father Kos' emotional controls."
Did you read that in June of 1992?
A. Yes, July.

Q. "That would suggest that Father Kos'
behavior would sometimes be seriously affected by lapses in
his ability to modulate emotional expression."
Bishop, one of the types of emotional
expression you were concerned about was the overaffection
he was showing to children, wasn't it?
A. That's correct.

Q. "As an example of this may be that
Father Kos has strong feelings toward affiliation with [7678]
teenagers my override his good judgment."
Did that not alert you to the fact that this
could be a very dangerous condition, for a man who has been
suspected of sexually abusing little boys for almost ten
years?
A. Possibly.

Q. And then, Bishop, what was their diagnosis?
Do you remember we talked about this in your deposition?
"Diagnosis" -- this is after they get through. This is not
the admitting diagnosis, this is the discharge diagnosis
they sent you after he returned, isn't it? Sir?
Bishop, you got this after Rudy Kos had
already been there and come back.
A. That's correct.

Q. This is not admitting, this is when he gets
out.
"Axes one, item two, rule out paraphilia not
otherwise specified."
That was pretty plain, wasn't it, Bishop?
A. In the explanation of Dr. Montana was that
their evidence did not surface any sexual misconduct.

Q. Bishop, when I took your deposition, do you
remember I asked but what does rule out mean pedophilia
mean? Do you remember me asking you that in your
deposition, sir? [7679]
A. That right's, that it was ruled out.

Q. And you told me --

MR. TURLEY: Can I sit it here a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You told me, Bishop, that
you read that, and what that meant to you was it was gone.
It was ruled out. It was gone.
A. No, it goes back to the answer I just gave
from you Dr. Montana.

Q. Don't you remember that in your deposition
we talked about that Father --
A. Yes, I do.

Q. -- Bishop.
MR. TURLEY: I don't mean to get up here
with my podium, Judge.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, you were here
earlier this morning when Dr. Gutierrez said that what that
means is, rules out means may have?
A. It also means you may not have.

Q. But it means you may have --
A. And may not have

Q. -- a threat to children, you don't know;
isn't that right?
A. I asked Dr. Montana, he said they evidenced
no -- there was no evidence of sexual misconduct. [7680]

Q. Well, that certainly not what he has
written, exactly, is it, Bishop?
A. Well, I'm not --

Q. And you were here prosecute Dr. Gutierrez
said, "Rule out paraphilia, means may be a pedophile", may
be pedophile. That what is these words right here
(indicating --
A. And may not be a pedophile, also.

Q. Right here (indicating).
A. That's right, may or may not be,
inconclusive.

Q. Bishop, what you have, then, is this
prominent, nationally-recognized institution saying to
Bishop Grahmann, down here in Dallas, "The man you have
sent us to examine may be a pedophile", that's what they
told you --
A. No.

Q. -- in June.
A. They didn't tell me that.

Q. Was that the words mean?
A. No, the words on the telephone were as I
mentioned them before.

Q. Are you telling us that Dr. Montana told you
something different on the phone than he has written in his
report? [7681]
A. I have no idea. I know what he told me on
the phone.

Q. You know, this report is from Dr. Montana.
A. Yes.

Q. Is he the one you talked on the phone, isn't
it?
A. Yes. He Is the one that called me.

Q. You also learned, Bishop, when you got this
report and read that it, "Father Kos has compulsive traits
and chronic Hepatitis C". You learned those things, also,
didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you also learned, Father, down here at
the become -- let put it up here so you can read it.
They said, "Second, Father Kos may, in fact,
be motivated by sexual feelings, but is not able, for many
reasons, to discuss this with us. Or, third, Father Kos'
behavior may be motivated by sexual feelings that are out
of his awareness". You read those things, didn't you?
A. May be.

Q. And they continue on the next page,
"Father Kos may have sexual feelings that he does not
conscientiously recognize".
A. May have.

Q. "Meaning that he may be sexually abusing [7682]
little boys and he doesn't even recognize he is doing it.
A. May.

Q. And the next paragraph -- they told you in
June of 1992, "It is" -- "it is in everyone's interest to
gather more information about Father Kos so that we may
more clearly understand the likelihood of each of these
possibilities. We are, therefore, recommending that
Father Kos undergo penal plethysmograph -- penal
plethysmograph -- a penal plethysmograph --
A. High-tech. It's high-tech.

Q. A penal plethysmography.
A. Is that English or Greek?

Q. That is one of those technical words,
Bishop.
You know, now, what that means, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And they recommended that Father Kos have
the plethysmograph, and they set up an appointment for him
to go down to New Orleans and have that done.
A. Correct.

Q. And you canceled it?
A. Correct.

Q. And they told you, Bishop, that he needed
this test, and they said, "After the test results have been
sent to us, we will be in a better position to make [7683]
detailed recommendations for the Father Kos' treatment."
Bishop, do you agree with me that this is
hardly a clean bill of health?
A. No, it's not a clean bill of health.

Q. And, Bishop, do you recommend to me that
this did not rule out and say, "This man is not a possible
threat to children"; do you agree with that?
A. Not exactly.

Q. Bishop, tell the jury what you did as soon
as you got this report back.
A. Talked to Dr. Montana on the phone.

Q. I'm sorry.
With respect to Father Kos, you got report
back, what did you do?
A. I -- In August I called him in, because I
had spoken with Dr. Montana about this high-tech word that
you were trying to pronounce a little earlier, and he
indicated to me it was a new test, it was for hardened
sexual criminals, it was very inconclusive. I had some
moral problems with it. The end never justifies the means.

Q. And you did something else. And, actually,
this was in July --
A. That's right.

Q. -- that you called Father Kos in and you
told him again, in no uncertain terms, that the boys were [7684]
not to be allowed in the rectory, in the facility, and if
he did that, you would take firm action.
A. That's correct.

Q. And you told him that after you got this
report from St. Luke's --
A. Correct.

Q. And you reassigned or you assigned Rudy Kos
back to St. John's to continue his pastorate?
A. I let him go back there.

Q. Did you know, Father -- or Bishop, did you
know that when you sent him back there, that he was, in
effect, the superintendent of the school?
A. No.

Q. You knew there was a school there,
kindergarten through high school, didn't you --
A. Yes.

Q. -- at St. John's.
A. Yes.

Q. And, as the pastor, he is, in effect, the
superintendent, isn't he?
A. Well, it is run by a school board.

Q. But he oversees the school board?
A. Well, a little, only a little. The school
board has the -- has the authority.

Q. No question but that you knew you were [7685]
sending him back into an environment where he had access to
little children, no question about that?
A. Well, he came back to Texas. There are
little children in Texas.

Q. Bishop, when you sent him over to -- over
the St. John's in Ennis, there is no question but that you
were sending him back into an environment where he had
access to little children and you were doing it in the face
of this report from St. Luke's.
A. No. The words of Dr. Montana -- the
evidence did not show any --
Q. All right, all right, Bishop, all right.

MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I'm at a good stopping
spot.
THE COURT: Good stopping spot.
Okay, let's quit for the evening. Let's talk about
tomorrow.
May I see the attorneys up here for just a second?

(Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
the hearing of the jury, and thereafter the following was
had, in the hearing of the jury, as follows:)

THE COURT: Let's do this: We're trying to get you a
day off on Thursday. I make no promises. But maybe if you
all can stay, see if can you arrange care -- I mean, [7686]
arrange a ride so you could walk out of here at 6:00
tomorrow evening. If we had that much time, I'm not
promising, but we might be able to do it without coming
back the next morning.

Is that a problem for anyone? I mean, no
peer pressure. I mean, I didn't mean to do that to you
that way. Is everybody okay to start on time in the
morning? Okay? Anybody need wake-up calls? Anybody
care to make wake-up calls? Discuss that among yourselves.
I'll take it out of my hands and put it in yours.
Goodnight. Happy birthday.

(Whereupon the proceedings were ended for
the day, and thereafter Bishop Grahmann's testimony was
continued on July 2, 1997, as follows:)

[Intervening testimony cut out from transcript page 7686, line 14, to page 7703, line 16, as it did not include testimony given directly by Bishop Grahmann. The following testimony resumed on 7-2-97 - BB)