Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 7

Cross-Examination by Sylvia Demarest
Recross Examination by Randal Mathis
Redirect Examination by Windle Turley
Recross Examination by Sylvia Demarest
Recross Examination by Randal Mathis
Redirect Examination by Windle Turley
July 2, 1997

[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.]

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. DEMAREST:

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, Dr. Jaeckle testified
in this case; are you aware of that?
A. Yes.

Q. And he told us what Monsignor Rehkemper
asked him to do during that call on December 1991. And we
wrote it down. The issue was Father Kos having kids over
and disturbing the routine of -- of the association of
pastors in the parish.
He didn't indicate to us that there was
anything that was requested of him in order to determine
whether or not Father Kos was a pedophile. Are you aware
of Dr. Jaeckle's testimony in that regard?
A. No.

Q. And that there was another contact that he
had with Monsignor Rehkemper on January 31st, 1992 where he
told Monsignor Rehkemper he was not in a position to make a
diagnosis, one way or another, that he could not rule out
that Kos was a pedophile or had some sort of sexual
problem, and that he needed to continue to see Father Kos,
and that there was no conclusion that Father Kos was not a
threat to minor children. [7850]
Are you aware of Dr. Jaeckle's testimony in
that regard?
A. No.

Q. And the fifth thing was that he did not know
if Father Kos was a pedophile. And he stated very clearly
in his testimony that he made that clear to
Monsignor Rehkemper; are you aware of that?
A. No, there is no litmus test to do that.

Q. So if Dr. Jaeckle is telling you or telling
Monsignor Rehkemper that -- that he could make no
conclusion that Father Kos was not a threat to minor
children, that he wasn't in the position to make a
diagnosis, that he could not rule out that Father Kos was a
pedophile, is it really correct to say to this jury that
Monsignor Rehkemper represented that Dr. Jaeckle said that
Kos was not a pedophile? It's not correct, is it?
A. I don't know that.

Q. In fact, I asked Dr. Jaeckle, "Dr. Jaeckle,
if Monsignor Rehkemper represented that you told him that
Kos is not a pedophile, is that representation true?", and
he said "No". And I wrote in red, "Not true."
So Bishop Grahmann, is it really correct for you to
say that up relied on Dr. Jaeckle saying that Kos wasn't a
pedophile, when he has testified here in this case, before
this jury, that he made no such statement? [7851]
A. I wasn't relying on Dr. Jaeckle saying he
was a pedophile.

Q. You were relying --
A. I was relying on him for his evaluation, and
his evaluation came back.

Q. And his evaluation came back that he was not
in a position to make a diagnosis, that he couldn't rule
out that Kos was a pedophile and had some sort of sexual
problem, that he needed to continue to see Father Kos, that
there was no conclusion that Father Kos was not a threat to
minor children and that he didn't know if Father Kos was a
pedophile, and that he made that clearly to
Monsignor Rehkemper?
A. That's right. That's why we kept him going
back for therapy.

Q. In other words, Bishop Grahmann, you sent a
man back, to have contact with children, when you had
somebody telling you, "I can't tell you whether or not he
is safe".
A. We have no evidence.

Q. Had no evidence.
So they're pulling out the deposition right
now, and do you know what they're going to say? They're
going to say that in that deposition Dr. Jaeckle testified
that he didn't have a -- he didn't know, based on what [7852]
Father Kos told him, that there was any evidence that
Father Kos was a pedophile. That's what this deposition
right over here (indicating) is going to say.
Now, let's turn around to what you guys were
told back when you -- you're talking about going to
conferences. Well, let's go to the conferences that
you're having back in '85, '83, and '86.
Isn't it true back then you're told,
"Though I assume the innocence of every priest accused of
pedophilia, until there is clear documentation of his
guilt, I just tell you that one of the personality
characteristics of a pedophile is a very strong denial that
he has committed any wrong."
Bishop, you couldn't trust Father Kos to
tell Father Jaeckle (sic) that he was a pedophile, could
you?
A. It's Dr. Jaeckle.
I don't know that.

Q. Isn't it true that in these cases, Bishop
Grahmann, you've got to rely upon the behavior that you
see?
A. I've got to rely on the medical and
psychological and psychiatric advice that I get from the
experts.

Q. And so, -- [7853]
A. And that is what I did.

Q. -- in other words, if a priest is having
boys in the rectory, they're taking them into their room,
they're closing the door and they're spending the night
with them and you warn them over and over and over again to
stop that and they don't stop, you are not going to remove
that priest from contact with children until that priest
admits to a psychiatrist that he is a pedophile; is that
what you're telling this jury?
A. No, no.

Q. Isn't it important, Bishop Grahmann, for you
to look at behavior?
A. Yes.

Q. Behavior is important, long-standing
suspicious behavior is important; is it not?
A. That's correct.

Q. And if it is behavior that gives the
appearance of impropriety, that gives the appearance of
being at risk for the safety of children, don't you, as
Bishop, need to stop it?
A. Try to do something about it, and I did.

Q. Now, you told Mr. Mathis -- let me -- before
we do that.
There was some question as to whether or not
Dr. Jaeckle ever told you -- [7854]
A. He never talked to me.

Q. -- that Kos was not a pedophile. And I
asked him that, and he said "No". So I wrote, "That is not
true."
Mr. Mathis asked you about the current
policy, that you made it clear to the priests of this
Diocese that only family members and parents and other
priests and seminarian are to spend the night in the
rectory?
A. That's that's true.

Q. Isn't that what you said?
Bishop Grahmann, didn't you make that clear
to Rudy Kos for seven years?
A. No.

Q. Well, we went over the fact that the first
warning was in 1986.
A. I wasn't here.

Q. I'm just saying he was warned formally, you
warned him three times. He knew -- Rudy Kos knew what the
policy was, clearly.
A. I would assume.

Q. But he didn't follow it, did he?
A. Unless -- until finally I made him follow
it.

Q. But the people that didn't know what the [7855]
policy where were the children and the parents that are
plaintiffs in this case and the other parishioners that
were in the parishes where he served, they didn't know what
the policy was, because no one told them; isn't that true?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. In fact, Bishop Grahmann, since you have
been Bishop of Dallas, you hasn't told the parishioners
that you have a policy.
A. I didn't find any reasonable to.

Q. You hasn't found any reason to.
Don't you think it is important to tell
these parishioners whose children are at risk that this is
the policy of the Dallas Diocese?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. You don't believe --
A. I told the priests that. I told the priests

Q. After everything we've gone through in this
case, Bishop Grahmann, after all of the evidence in this,
you are sitting here and you're telling this jury that you
don't think it is necessary to do that.
A. No.

Q. All right.
Now, you've also told Mr. Mathis that you
now have a policy which you've communicated to the priests
of the Diocese, that they're not to take minors, [7856]
unaccompanied, on overnight trips, without adult
supervision; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Yet, you haven't made that policy known to
the lay people of this Diocese who might allow their
children to do that, either; have you, Bishop Grahmann?
A. Only because I've given it to the priests.

Q. After everything that we've heard about in
this case, about what has happened on these overnight trips
with Rudy Kos where he gave these children alcohol, where
he rendered them incapable of defending themselves and
sexually abused them, don't you think it is time for the
Dallas Diocese to tell the parishioners of this Diocese,
"We have a policy. You do not allow your children to go
unaccompanied on overnight trips with priests"? Don't you
think the time has come to do that?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. What would it take to convenience you,
Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. The St. Luke's report. Now, you-- you're
telling us that you read this report; is that what you're
telling us?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. [7857]
It's dated June the 17th. It is addressed
to you. And I'm not going to take a lot of time with it,
Bishop Grahmann, but there is something that I want to go
over.
First of all, there is a report which is
acknowledged in here, that Rudy Kos is engaging in
inappropriate behavior with adolescent boys.
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.

Q. And it has persisted over a long period --
it has continued over a long period of time and persisted,
in spite of expressions of concern that have been directed
to Father Kos. Now.
Let me to ask you: I wonder what the result
of the St. Luke's evaluation would have been if St. Luke's
had been told that Father Kos had been warned by
Monsignor Rehkemper, in January of 1986, that he had been
-- that the Personnel Board had said that he should be told
in writing that if he continued to have boys overnight, he
would be suspended, that you warned him on three occasions,
that other member warned him, and that in spite of those
warnings he continued to have boys overnight.
What do you think St. Luke's would have done
with that information?
A. I don't know. [7858]

Q. They didn't have it, though, did they?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, if all they had was Father Williams'
letter, Father Williams has testified he was unaware of
this history concerning Father Kos, it's not in his letter,
so clearly St. Luke's didn't have that, did then?
A. I don't know.

Q. Wouldn't it have been important, if you're
going to send Father Kos to Dr. Jaeckle for evaluation, if
you're going to send Father Kos to St. Luke's for
evaluation, if you are are concerned about the welfare of
the children that are going to come into contact with this
man, that these people should know everything there is to
know before they make a definitive diagnosis and tell you
that this man should be put back in contact with children?
A. I don't know that. I can't answer that.

Q. On page 8, St. Luke's very clearly said,
"The question remains whether Father Kos' behavior has been
sexually motivated. Father Kos' denial of sexual
motivation or intent suggests three possibilities. The
second one is that Father Kos may, in fact, be motivated by
sexual feelings but is not able, for many reasons, to
discuss this with us."
Bishop Grahmann, let's be honest. Anybody
reading this report, front to back, would be looking at the [7859]
-- at a report of a man that could not, by any stretch ever
the imagine, be sent -- should be sent back into contact
with children; isn't that the case?
A. No.

Q. You don't believe that?
A. I don't believe it.

Q. On the last page, "We have believe it is in
everyone's interest gather more information about Father
Kos so that we may more clearly understand the likelihood
of
each of these possibilities. I'm hopeful that we can get
the results of this report quickly so that we can resolve
the outcome of this evaluation."
They are very clearly telling you, are they
not, Bishop, that they cannot resolve the outcome of the
evaluation, because there is evidence that Father Kos may
be, in fact, motivated sexually towards these teenagers,
aren't they?
A. I don't know that.

Q. You did tell us, in your deposition, that
the St. Luke's report concluded exactly what Dr. Montana
said over the telephone.
A. Yes, when I asked him the question.

Q. Okay.
And that the report verifies your testimony [7860]
about the statements.
A. Of what he said to me.

Q. Okay.
And that the report indicated that there was
no problem.
A. Well, there were problems, but they were not
problems of abuse of minors.

Q. So you sent him back to the parish.
A. That's correct.

Q. And you sent him back to the parish, without
letting anybody in the parish know that he had been through
all of these extensive evaluations, because you were
concerned that he might be sexually abusing children.
A. I finally found out he wasn't.

Q. Well, no, Bishop Grahmann, you never found
out he wasn't --
A. No one can find that out.

Q. -- that is not correct.
You never found out whether he was a
pedophile, such as he was suspected to be; isn't that a
more --
A. Or was not, that's correct.

Q. -- accurate --
Now, so that there is absolutely no question
about the receipt of this report, we've now been given, [7861]
have we not, a copy of this confidential report compiled by
Father Doyle, Dr. Peterson, and Ray Mouton, with a receipt,
a stamp from the Curia of Dallas, received on December
27th, 1985, with the handwritten note indicating who it
comes from; is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know even today?
A. I wasn't here -- I wasn't here, so I don't
know.

Q. You don't know, even today, that this report
has been discovered in your file?
A. I guess it has, yes.

Q. Okay.
And, in fact, there was a follow-up letter
sent to this report, received in the Curia of Dallas,
August 30, 1986 dated August 27, 1986 from St. Luke's
Institute, from Father Peterson, forwarding some additional
information, "for them to put in the book so that the
information would be absolutely up-to-date, in order to
tell dioceses what to do about this situation."
Are you aware of that?
A. Yes, I see it. I wasn't here, though.

Q. And one of the things that they say in this
report is the statement that, "Where there is smoke, there
is almost always fire", and that, "it is generally the tip [7862]
of the iceberg."
Are you aware of that, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, I submit to you that that is the
very same thing that people were telling all of you folks
back in 1985 and 1986. That hasn't changed that much. The
depth and scope of this problem, as it applies to the
clergy, in terms of their denial and the fact that this is
usually the tip of the iceberg, hasn't changed that much,
has it?
A. I don't know.

MS. DEMAREST: I pass the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross?

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATHIS:

Q. Bishop, just a few more and I'll be through.
Bishop, when Rudy Kos was sent to
Dr. Jaeckle, what was your purpose in having him go to
Dr. Jaeckle?
A. To find out if he was abusing children.

Q. All right.
Now, what was your understanding of
Dr. Jaeckle's report back after his initial eight meetings
with Kos?
A. I understand he was that -- that he had some [7863]
sexual problems, immaturity, that he liked to be around
children.
And I don't remember whether there was
anything else, but those were the primary things that I
understood.

Q. All right.
And at the instruction of the Diocese, he
continued to see Dr. Jaeckle, then, until -- until he left,
at the end of '92?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Now, if Dr. Jaeckle, without getting into a
huge argument here, if Dr. Jaeckle reported back that he
found no evidence of child abuse and was not even, based on
his interviews and -- and evaluations of Rudy Kos,
suspicious of child abuse, what did you conclude from that,
as to whether it was safe for Rudy to continue to work?
A. I included it was safe for him to continue
to work until he violated that by the disobedience of the
order not to have any children at the rectory.

Q. All right.
Now, there isn't any question, is there,
that Dr. Jaeckle knew what he was to looking for? He knew
why Rudy -- Rudy Kos was sent to him.
MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading. [7864]

MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor, I will object -- not
only that, there is no evidence that that witness knows.
And I think the evidence in the record is quite clear.
THE COURT: Sustained, lack of personnel
knowledge.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) If Dr. Jaeckle testified
that he knew, would that surprise you at all?
A. Not at all.

Q. All right.
When you had Rudy Kos in your office and
asked him -- whatever words were used, but if there was
something else going on with the teenagers, from your
discussion with him and from your perception of the
situation, did he know exactly what you're asking him?
A. He knew precisely.

MS. DEMAREST: Objection, Your Honor, calls for
speculation on this witness.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) When Rudy Kos was sent to
St. Luke's for evaluation, St. Luke's Institute, was
St. Luke's Institute given, by the Diocese,
Father Williams' full twelve page recitation of everything
he was seeing out there?
A. Yes, they were.

Q. And, Bishop, let me ask you: Is it [7865]
important -- you mentioned the words, or somebody did
awhile ago, this question of people doing things that could
be misconstrued or construed as something inappropriate,
you know, the appearance of how things look. Do you
understand what I'm talking about?
A. Yes.

Q. The fact that somebody is doing something --
you've got to be care about interpreting things, don't you?
A. That's correct.

Q. Appearances are not always what they're
trumped up to be.
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Now, when Rudy went to St. Luke's and they
had that full twelve page report from Father Williams, the
psychologist priest, Father Williams, did St. Luke's, even
having that and even doing their evaluation, still tell --
told you that they had no evidence --

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained,

MS. DEMAREST: And, Your Honor, --
THE COURT: -- rephrase.

MS. DEMAREST: -- I think it is outside of the
evidence of this case.
THE COURT: That is overruled. [7866]
Go ahead. Just rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Tell us, again, after
St. Luke's had reviewed what they were sent and after they
had evaluated Rudy Kos up there in the hospital, what they
told you, as far as whether they thought he was or was not
a child abuser.
A. I don't get the question.

Q. After you talked with Dr. Montana did you
think Rudy Kos was a child abuser?

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading. It also has
been asked and answered, repetitious.
THE COURT: Okay, I don't know if it has been
asked and answered or not.
Do you recall?
Then, go ahead and answer it. Go ahead and ask it.
Just rephrase it so it is not leading.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) What was your conclusion
after you talked with Dr. Montana by telephone?
A. That Rudy Kos was not a child molester.

Q. If after that telephone conversation you had
thought he was a child molester, what would you have done?
A. I would have not let him come back to the
city at all.

Q. When you received the written report,
shortly after that conversation, did you read that report [7867]
with your conversation of the verbal report in mind?
A. Precisely, precisely.

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Rephrase.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) After getting the written
report, was your conclusion, from the telephone
conversation with Dr. Montana who wrote the report, any
different?
MR. TURLEY: Objection, still leading.
MR. MATHIS: That's not reading. Was it any
different or not.
THE COURT: No, that is just a yes or no answer.
That is not leading.
Overruled.
You can answer that.
THE WITNESS: No, the conclusion was the same.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Bishop, what is the policy
now, without getting into a semantic game about what
allegation means in your new written policy, what is the
policy of this Diocese when it comes to rumors, hints,
information, whatever it is, about somebody doing something
wrong sexually with children?
A. If there are any rumors or hints or concerns
or cautions, even anonymous letters or anonymous phone [7868]
calls, they will all be attended to. They will be
evaluated profoundly and deeply and a decision will be
made, based on the content of those rumors.

Q. By holding these seminars, publishing this
policy, everything that has gone on in the Dallas Diocese
for the last two years, do you have a much better-educated
group of teachers and workers and priests that effectively
are now all watching each other?
A. Absolutely, absolutely.

Q. And is the idea that before long that is
going to even apply --

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Rephrase.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) State whether or not there
are plans to ultimately expand that to just general church
volunteers.
A. Yes.

Q. All right.
Thank you, sir, very much.
A. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TURLEY:

Q. Bishop, if you now are following a pattern
and practice of acting on rumors and hints of suggestions [7869]
of sexual impropriety, you do understand, don't you, that
that is contrary to everything you have in writing?
A. No, I don't understand it that way.

Q. You have nothing -- you have nothing, top,
side or bottom in this case or anywhere in this Diocese
where you have ever put into writing that you're going to
act on rumors, you're going to act on hearsay, you're going
act on hints of sexual impropriety?
A. I did not say I would act. I would evaluate
them and then act.

Q. You have nothing in writing that says you
will even evaluate them, do you, Bishop?
A. I don't have to.

Q. Have you a policy that says if somebody
sends you an anonymous letter complaining about sexual
abuse, you'll trash it.
A. I will not.

Q. Well, you've got a written policy that says
that. We looked at it for several weeks here.

MR. MATHIS: Objection, that is misconstruing
what that policy is. We've gone over and over that.
THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) We know what it is,
Bishop, believe -- trust me. You've got a policy like
that. I know you may not be aware of it. We've looked at [7870]
it. And I'm not going to take the time to dig it out.
In this policy issued January 1st, 1997, no
place, no place on any page do you suggest you'll act on a
hint or a rumor or gossip to even open an investigation;
isn't that correct, Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. Bishop, did you read that policy before
was --
A. Oh, yes, --

Q. -- it was issued?
A. -- very much so.

Q. It was just one hundred and twenty days go,
sir.
A. That's correct.

Q. Can you not remember for one hundred and
twenty days ago --
A. Yes, I do.

Q. -- on a policy that took you seven years to
put together to protect the lives and health of little
children?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, is it in there or not, Bishop?
A. No, that point is not in there.

Q. Now, Bishop, don't you think it would have
helped Dr. Jaeckle perform his mission if some of you folks [7871]
would have told him, "Dr. Jaeckle, we want you to find out
if Kos is abusing go children."?
He testified here that nobody ever asked him
to make that determination, when -- when Dr. Kos -- when
Father Kos was sent to him; would that surprise you?
A. I don't know.

Q. No one asked him to do that.
A. I don't know that.

Q. No one, he testified, in that chair right
there where you're seated, ever asked him to determine if
Rudy Kos had a sexual addiction. Would that surprise you?
A. He was supposed to find that out.

Q. Nobody told him. He said, "Nobody told me
that."
Maybe things got lost in the priorities.
A. No.

Q. Bishop, I just have one other question for
you. Did I understand you to say this morning, that until
Ms. Demarest mentioned it to you a little bit ago in this
very day, that you were unaware that Rudy Kos was sexually
abusing altar boys and giving them alcohol and drugs and
sexually abusing them in the rectory of the church, until
today?
A. Oh, no, I didn't say that.

Q. You've known that all along, haven't you?[7872]
A. No, because I wasn't here until 1990.

Q. You've known it since the lawsuit has been
filed, haven't you, Father?
A. What is that?

Q. That Rudy Kos sexually abused boys,
primarily altar boys, and gave them alcohol and drugs in
the rectory of All Saints and St. Luke's and St. John's
churches?
A. I know that post-factum.

Q. Have you read the complaint of the
plaintiffs, that we filed in this case?
A. I don't remember.

Q. Bishop, do you think you might have learned
anything about how to solve some of these problems if you
had read the complaint that has brought us here for two
months?
A. Yes, your wisdom of everyone, the wisdom of
all of society has continuously taught us all an immense
amount and it is continuing to teach us an immense amount.

Q. I'm not sure that is true, Bishop.
A. Well, that's your opinion.

Q. I'm not sure that is true.
My question was -- and my question was:
Don't you think you might have learned something if you had
taken the time to read the complaint that brought the [7873]
parents of one dead boy and ten seriously injured other
boys into this courtroom took up our time, with this fine
jury, for two months?
A. That's correct.

Q. You've never read even --
A. I'm not sure that I read it.

MR. MATHIS: Objection, Your Honor. That
mischaracterizes things. He is saying he is not sure. He
has been given a boat load of material, for four years,
from me. There is no way anybody could remember all of
that.
THE COURT: Okay.

MS. DEMAREST: One question.

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. DEMAREST:

Q. Are you telling us that -- that all this
advance in society and all of this that you've talked about
and that you've mentioned to us, has resulted in the fact
that you think it is the best practice for the priests of
the Dallas Diocese to watch each other?
A. Oh, sure. They always have.

Q. Instead of getting everybody on-board about
what the prevention effort will be, what the rules and
policies will be, including the lay people, so that they
can makes decisions for themselves about the safety of
7874
their own children?
A. That's correct.

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MATHIS:

Q. Bishop, isn't the -- the hard reality of
some of the child abuse problem, that even if priests are
watching others priests, like Monsignor Kamel and
Father Kelly in years before you were here, and teachers
are watching other teachers and priests are watching
teachers and the volunteers are watching everything and the
secretaries and the bookkeepers are watching everybody, the
fact is, people can make mistakes and not catch people.
A. Then can make mistakes and they can also be
deceived.

MR. MATHIS: That's all I have. Thank you very
much.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TURLEY:

Q. Bishop, that is not the only problem, is it,
of priests watching priest?
A. It's everybody watching everybody.

Q. How quickly do you think Rudy Kos would have
run to the Bishop to complain about the sexual abuse that
Father Peebles was performing on his suitemate at All
Saints on other children? [7875]
A. I have no idea.

MR. MATHIS: Your Honor --
That's all right.

THE COURT: Any other questions?
MR. MATHIS: No.
MR. TURLEY: No.
MS. DEMAREST: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Let's take a ten minute break switch
witnesses.

(Whereupon the jury was excused from the
courtroom, for a break, and thereafter the following was
had, in the presence of the jury, as follows:)