TOBIN

Tobin was a cook in St Joseph's, Letterfrack, and from the time he arrived there in 1959 at the age of 27, until the institution closed in 1974, when he was 42, he systematically molested, beat, and buggered little boys, aged from 11 to 14, who were sent to work in his kitchen. The accused, who is still a stout, strong man given his age, was originally charged with 140 counts of buggery and indecent assault involving his victims over three decades but he pleaded guilty this week to 25 sample counts, including two charges of buggery, and 23 charges of indecent assault ..... The assaults were of a violent, sexual nature and were perpetrated in fear. For some of the victims, the violent experience was their introduction to sexual experience and was committed by a minder. Some of the victims, the judge said, had travelled long distances and the case for some of them marked the end of a journey and brought some sort of closure on their life to date. 71-year-old Christian Brother Maurice Tobin has been given a 12-year jail sentence for sexually abusing 25 boys at the Letterfrack Industrial School in Co Galway between 1959 and 1974. Four years of his sentence were suspended by Judge Harvey Kenny, who took into account the fact that Tobin had pleaded guilty, his age and his state of health. Judge Kenny said that Tobin had been involved in violently sexually assaulting the boys and he wondered why this sex abuse was allowed to go unchecked. In a statement, the Christian Brothers said they deeply regretted the hurt and pain caused to those who were abused by Brother Tobin. The Congregation said it was greatly saddened by his actions, and offered its sincere apologies to those who were abused and to their families. The garda team involved in the investigation said it is examining further cases of alleged sex abuse by others at the former industrial school. Galway Circuit Court had heard that Maurice Tobin, of North Circular Road in Dublin, worked in the kitchens and on the farm at St Joseph's Industrial School from 1959 until it closed down in 1974. Tobin was born in Mitchelstown in Co Cork and joined the Irish Christian Brothers at the age of 15. He pleaded guilty to what was described as 'a shocking litany' of sexual abuse - 23 cases of indecent assault and two of buggery. In statement read to the court, the former pupils described how they were abused over a long period of time in the kitchens, in storerooms, the dormitory and in farmyard buildings. Sixteen of Tobin's victims were in court today. Seven gave evidence that their lives had been destroyed. They described how they had become involved in alcohol and drug abuse, attempted to commit suicide and found it almost impossible to lead normal lives. ON February 16, 1966, 11-year-old Francie Shanley was taken from his home in Longford to the local District Court, writes Brian McDonald. A judge ordered him to Letterfrack until he was 16. Gardai drove him to the Connemara institution immediately. His offence? "My mother couldn't look after me - we just had no money," he said yesterday. He was terrified when sent to the kitchen to help Brother Tobin. Everybody feared him and the fear became almost unbearable when the cook put his armsaround him in the kitchen. "He said to me 'Don't worry Frank, I'll look after you'. He opened his cassock and took out his penis . . ." He was abused 16 times by Brother Tobin. He went home for two weeks in the summer, but his mother would not listen when he tried to tell her what was happening. In later life he met a good woman, but he put her through hell. He was also terribly strict on his children, because he did not want them to end up in a place like Letterfrack. In court he said he laughed when he heard Brother Tobin prayed for his victims. "I don't forgive them (the Brothers). I don't forgive the State," he said. He calls the 11-year-old Francie from his past the 'young fella'. Asked if he had closure on the abuse, he said: "There's just a small bit of closure for the young fella." Dublin-based decorator, Jim Lyons - another victim - said he was happy with the 12-year term as he thought it would be a lot less. He said others would find it hard to understand effects of the abuse and just wished he did not have to endure it. "You awoke with fear in your throat and you went to bed with fear. The brutality was constant - you were just part of the system there. There was constant physical and sexual abuse. Today it was good to see him in court and to hear the sentence. But I still have a lot of anger inside me." he said. Another victim said when he got out of Letterfrack he telephoned the Brothers to talk about what had happened. It was the second time he heard a Christian Brother curse. He was told he was a "f****** liar". He later went off the rails and was addicted to drink and drugs for 20 years. Judge Harvey Kenny said he would suspend the final four years of the sentence imposed on Maurice Tobin (71) of North Circular Road, Dublin, in light of his age and his admission of guilt. Galway Circuit Court heard the accused was a cook at the industrial school. Boys were regularly sent to help him with kitchen duties, and nobody could enter without Tobin's permission. Tobin would come up behind victims in the kitchen, put his arms around them and feel inside their trousers before carrying out further sexual acts. One of the victims told gardai Tobin pulled down his trousers and buggered him in the kitchen. The pain was terrible, "like being split wide open", he said. One of his victims described him as a lunatic, a "madman". All his victims were terrified of him. Another of those abused recalled Tobin opening his cassock, exposing himself and ejaculating against him. One recalled being sent to the kitchen to help Tobin. If he was unhappy with his work, he would catch his testicles and squeeze until he was red in the face with pain. He also recalled being stripped and beaten by Tobin with a leather strap. Another boy was punched in the stomach and the back if he did not do things correctly. Many of the victims told of feeling helpless and being unable to tell anyone. One said he knew that if he reported what Tobin had done to him, he would be beaten. A boy who arrived in 1964 said he was asked to clear the boiler when Tobin came up behind him and lifted him off the ground with one arm before abusing him. "I was speechless with fear." he said. Another victim buggered by Tobin told gardai his arm was bent behind his back prior to the assault. He also recalled Tobin going to the showers and telling boys to take off swimming togs "in order to wash properly". Many of the victims had broken marriages, had got into trouble with the law, became dysfunctional or had problems with alcohol. Many were receiving mental treatment. Det Garda Hugh McClafferty said Tobin had been arrested in June 2001 and, after an hour, had volunteered to tell the truth. The court heard Tobin was born in Mitchelstown in 1932, joined the Christian Brothers at 14 and was professed at 25. He worked in Letterfrack from 1959 to 1974. He later worked in Swords, Co Dublin before moving to St Patrick's Nursing Home until 2002. Cross-examined by Patrick Gageby SC for the accused, Det Garda McClafferty agreed Tobin told him Letterfrack was a very tough place and that he was sorry for what he had done. He said he believed the accused was remorseful. Judge Harvey Kenny commended the victims for coming to court, and said justice required that he impose a custodial sentence over the assaults. Meanwhile, an apology from the Christian Brothers to Tobin's victims was rejected by some of the victims present for the Galway hearing. In a statement, the Christian Brothers said they deeply regretted the hurt caused to the victims. "We are greatly saddened by his actions and offer our sincere apologies to those who were abused and to their families." it said. One of the victims, Frank Shanley of Boyle, Co Roscommon, said: "We lost our innocence, everything. I don't forgive them." Another, Jim Lyons, said children should never have been abused in the way he was. "Children should be protected by the Government. I don't know if I can go on." FOR the boys unfortunate enough to end up in the dreaded St Joseph's Industrial School in north-west Connemara, being assigned to Brother Maurice Tobin meant a trip into their own version of Hell's Kitchen, writes Brian McDonald. The Letterfrack grapevine had it that the cook from Co Cork was a man to be avoided at all costs. But many vulnerable youngsters had no choice when ordered to Tobin's lair. Supt Tony Dowd, who has overseen a five-year probe into the voluminous allegations of physical and sexual abuse at Letterfrack, described it as an "extremely harshly-run institution". Certified an industrial school in 1884, St Joseph's continued as a residence of incarceration for young "offenders" until 1974. Young boys were sent there for a range of misdemeanours and for not attending school. One victim said the boys were "bet" out of bed in the morning before Mass. They attended school from 9am until about 3pm, after which they were assigned duties including farm work and carpentry. The boys rarely had enough to eat, the victim recalled. Seeking out food was fraught with danger, as it meant either going to the kitchen or pursuing some other risky course of action. Tobin used food as a "reward" for those who succumbed to his will and, for many, the Letterfrack experience was a supreme test of survival. Even in bed at night, they were not free from the clutches of the sexually demanding cook. Over 30 years later, the vulnerable boys are now men and Tobin looks anything but the sexual predator and overbearing bully he once was. In court he sat quietly inside one of the doors of the main Galway courtroom. He remained motionless for long periods, waiting for the catalogue of shame to unfold. As details of his reign of sexual terror began to emerge, he became uneasy and shifted in his chair. He focused on a spot on the floor and did not look up. As sentence was passed by Judge Harvey Kenny, Tobin got to his feet as required and moved a few paces towards the bench. He showed no obvious emotion as the 12-year term was handed down. Afterwards, he was led from the courtroom by a prison officer and his victims poured out behindhim. One shouted down the stairs after the accused that he was a pig.

Letterfrack - Sexual Abuse of Children By Christian Brothers

Q. I see. Can we move on now to a matter which is of primary interest to the work of this Commission and that's part 3 on the allegations of abuse. You start in this section of the submission by dealing with the issue of awareness of sexual abuse?

A. Yes.

Q. In the course of that you say that the admonition not to fondle pupils as used in the text, that's the Constitution of the Christian Brothers, was meant to warn brothers against any kind of physical contact that could be construed as showing favouritism or inappropriate affection. You say that "fondle" didn't have a sexual connotation at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. Can I just ask you to look at a document that's gone up on screen there. This is the 1962 Constitution of the Christian Brothers. Do you see rule 85 there?

A. Yes.

Q. It says: "Whilst the brothers should cherish an affection for all the pupils especially the poor, they are forbidden to manifest a particular friendship for any of them. They must not fondle their pupils." And its continues. You say that wouldn't have had a sexual connotation at the time?

A. No.

Q. I am just wondering why it's under a heading at the top of the page of "Chastity"?

A. Chastity and the vow of chastity was linked with the whole question of a brother's availability to all people. We talked this morning about friendships that were particular rather than widespread so any form of particularity with regard to a relationship between a brother and a group was intimately linked with the idea that a person who takes the vow of celibacy or chastity was available to all people in a general and equal way rather than focussing on one or two. It's in that sense -- I mean the current dictionaries would not have a sexual connotation in it.

Q. I accept that, but here you have the reference to not fondling their pupils under a chapter which is headed "Chastity" and I am just wondering if in that context it was understood to mean something else?

A. My understanding is it wasn't.

Q. I see. You then say that the fact that the rules of the congregation specifically highlighted the need for vigilance and the code of behaviour indicates the authorities at the time believed that sexual abuse was a possibility and that precautions needed to be taken. You point out I think that sexual abuse of a child was a rare occurrence?

A. Yes. I think looking back over the files of the congregation there are instances by individual brothers in isolated incidents where there was child abuse so they were obviously aware that there was a danger of child abuse in any institution.

Q. You say: "That the issue of child abuse was something which was sure to initiate an immediate response from the authorities once the matter was drawn to their attention." What did you mean by the authorities?

A. The Christian Brothers.

Q. You didn't consider the civil authorities, the Garda Siochana?

A. No. It doesn't seem in the 30's, 40's and 50's when the incidents of child abuse came to the attention of the brothers, this was seen as a moral failure on the part of the brother. Strange as it may seem it wasn't primarily judged as a crime, it quite obviously was a crime.

Q. That's what I was going to suggest to you. Clearly any form of indecent assault is a crime. If for example the local postman molested a child behind a garage I would be, I suggest, unthinkable even in those days that the matter wouldn't be reported to the civil authorities to be investigated. What made the religious different, why would it be just a moral issue for the religious but a criminal issue for people who weren't in the Christian Brothers?

A. When I am talking about it as a moral issue I would say that for the Christian Brothers and maybe for a lot of religious orders, I would say it was a fairly widespread thing. Looking at it now it should have been reported to the authorities.

Q. Of course, but was it because of the issue of scandal, was that what they were more preoccupied about?

A. It may have been. It may have been that, it may have been that the whole question of sexual abuse and reporting of it anywhere by the postman or anyone, I am not sure how widespread it was that the civil authorities were informed about any sexual abuse, I am not sure.

Q. I think you may take it that there were plenty of criminal trials going on in the various decades of the twentieth century involving indecent assault and buggery and issues like that?

A. As I say the only reason I can see where it wouldn't have happened is if they considered it more as a moral issue than a criminal issue.

Q. Yes. When you speak of the procedures in place to deal with the matter, the Order seems to be talking about dismissing a brother from the congregation or giving him a canonical warning or transferring him or issues of that nature?

A. Yes, the normal procedure in the case of an incident of child abuse, if a brother was not a professed member of the congregation and he transgressed in any serious way the rules of the congregation he would be dismissed. Brothers were dismissed for instances of abuse, but also for all sorts of other things that we would consider not that serious at the moment and they would have been dismissed. If a brother was finally professed he was given a canonical warning and he was transferred from the scene of his crime. The basis of that was this whole theology of sin and occasion of sin. If you move the person from the occasion of sin then he would be less inclined to re-offend. Now, we now that that is not the case. If abuse was repeated the finally professed brother was dismissed or usually dismissed or else advised to seek canonical dispensation from his vows and that sometimes happened.

Q. Do you think the steps taken to deal with issues of sexual abuse were adequate?

A. I think when there was an incident of child abuse and it came to the authorities they took action immediately. Judged today, I would say it wasn't adequate. Judged then -- one thing I can say is they didn't try to cover it up. They removed the person from the scene and they tried to ensure that he wasn't involved in another set-up, but unfortunately that did happen.

Q. I wonder is that correct, that they didn't try and cover it up. If they didn't report it to the civil authorities, who would know if a brother was moved quietly to some other part of the country or gave up his vows?

A. Yes, well in terms of the public authorities they wouldn't have revealed anything like that. In terms of a congregation and in terms of taking action they weren't prepared to allow it to happen, say nothing, and not reveal it to anyone within the organisation. When I say cover-up, I am talking about covering up within the organisation itself.

Q. Yes, but you don't think that the expression cover-up implies keeping something within the organisation and not to go beyond that?

A. Yes, I think it could be understood that way.

Q. I think there was accepted an awareness that there could be sexual activity between the boys themselves?

A. Yes. I think there are a number of references in the visitation reports which talks about improper conduct.

Q. Yes.

A. I refer particularly to 1940 and 1941 where it mentions that immorality exists so much among the boys and so on.

Q. This wouldn't have been peculiar to St. Joseph's in Letterfrack?

A. No, it wouldn't. Probably in a lot of boarding schools, not necessarily reformatory or industrial schools, that was always the danger.

Q. Yes. There is an issue then that is raised about a member of lay staff who was dismissed --

A. Yes.

Q. -- after a complaint of sexual abuse was made against him?

A. Yes, that's true. That was in the mid-30's and also towards the end of the 30's one of the workers was also dismissed. Some of the women who were involved in the laundry and so on, it was more maybe what was considered inappropriate at the time for the boys. It came to the notice of management that the boys were uncomfortable with it and therefore these people were asked to leave.

Q. So far as a member of lay staff was dismissed for improper behaviour, improper sexual behaviour, is there any record that that was reported to the civil authorities?

A. No, I wouldn't say it was.

Q. But the issue of scandal to the Christian Brothers, that wouldn't have been affected there, why I wonder then was that not reported to the Garda ?

A. I am not sure why. There is no indication in the documentation, at least I can't remember seeing any indication why that wouldn't have been notified to the police.

Q. Do the records available to the Christian Brothers show that a brother who was known to have abused children could have been moved to another institution with access to children?

A. I think if we went through each of the cases we would see that in some cases that did happen.

Q. Yes. Why was that?

A. Well, I think I would prefer to wait until I go through each of them rather than deal with it now.

Q. Just bear with me for a moment please. Dealing with the issue of sexual abuse by brothers on pupils, you have already told the Committee that there was no evidence this was systemic?

A. Yes.

Q. You then make reference to examination of archival documentation, do you see that on page 81?

A. Yes.

Q. This shows that lapse of time and change in leadership personnel and the transfer of files from the Generalate in Ireland to the new Generalate in Rome created a situation where some brothers were sent to Letterfrack despite committing incidents of abuse prior to being stationed there?

A. Again, I am not sure if you are not going to go each individual?

Q. I will go through some of them certainly.

A. Maybe in general I would just say this: Up to the late 60's our province administration and the whole congregation administration was in Ireland so both of them was there. Then the administration for the entire congregation moved to Rome and with that a transfer of archival material. Every effort was made that the Irish material would stay in Ireland and the beyond Ireland material would go to Rome, but we discovered over the last couple of months that some material had gone to Rome which properly should have stayed in Ireland. Again we will see which of those documents we discovered as we go through each case. The second thing is that leadership in the congregation took place every six years. You could have a leadership grouping of six brothers who would be there for a six year period and the following six year period you could have a completely new team and certainly twelve years beyond you have a completely new team. What seems to have happened is that the new leadership team that came into power, when they were looking at personnel they weren't aware that a team twelve years previously had dealt with the case. They obviously didn't examine the files carefully enough to see was there a problem and that unfortunately was a failure of the system.

Q. Yes. The problem was one known to exist I think certainly from 1941 onwards?

A. Yes.

Q. In 1941 there is visitation report referring to a brother. "It is alleged that his relations with the boys are immoral and if the statements that I have got from boys and which I now submit to the Brother Provincial are true he has been living in a most depraved, unclean and gravely immoral life for years. So bad are the charges that I could not conscientiously allow him to remain with the boys any longer. Availed of the fact that he got a fit on the day that I arrived to send him to the O'Brien Institute for a 'rest'." What was the O'Brien Institute?

A. The O'Brien Institute was an institute for orphaned children. In fact he was sent there for a very short period before he was dismissed from the congregation.

Q. Just before deal with the issue of his dismissal. So I understand you correctly, his behaviour was so bad that the author of this felt he couldn't be allowed to remain with boys any longer and he was then sent to an orphanage, albeit for a short time, is that what you are saying?

A. It is, but what would appear he was there for a month.

Q. Let's leave aside how long he was there. Do you think that that is extraordinary?

A. Well, I do. I think it's extraordinary if he had any contact with people. I am presuming that he had no contact with the young people there, but I think it's extraordinary that he was sent.

Q. Yes. We know that in 1954 there was another incident involving a brother and there is a letter from Br. Murphy to the Provincial saying: "I am very sorry to have to inform you that -- and he names the brother -- has been dealing immorally with two boys. I have asked him about it and he has admitted it."

A. Yes.

Q. Do we know what happened this particular brother?

A. Yes. The brother was dismissed from the congregation and he left in that year.

Q. I don't propose to go through individual brothers. You have named individual brothers --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in the submissions and you have said what has happened to them. For example, on page 84 you deal with a brother you refer to as Br. Y?

A. Yes.

Q. He had been "dealing immorally with two boys" and you describe what he had been doing. You say he was dismissed from the congregation and left in August 1954. You say this demonstrates how quickly the authorities acted when a complaint was brought to their attention. By authorities again I think you are talking about internal authorities?

A. Yes.

Q. There is no question of the civil authorities being notified?

A. No.

Q. On page 85 of your submissions you talk about Br. P who had been in the O'Brien Institute in 1960 and two boys made written statements to the Superior complaining of abuse. Was that in the O'Brien Institute?

A. That was in the O'Brien Institute.

Q. The Superior forwarded statements to the Provincial Br. Mulholland asking him to change Br. P to a day school and this was done. He was sent then from the orphanage to a day school and then he was sent as Superior to Letterfrack in 1971?

A. '73.

Q. Sorry, I beg your pardon. No, he remained until '73, I think.

A. Sorry, yes, '71, you are right.

Q. How could that have happened, that he was sent from an orphanage to a school and then on to Letterfrack which was a residential institution for boys having been reported of being involved in sexual impropriety?

A. As I say in the comment there, the leadership team that dealt with the incident in the OBRIEN INSTITUTE had been replaced in 1966, the event had happened in 1960. Now, there was one member of the original team who remained there who should have remembered. I am not sure why he didn't remember. I am just conscious that there was one member there. His personnel file appears not to have been consulted so it was a rather bad decision.

Q. Yes. You have other examples, I don't want to be tedious and go through them all, but there are other examples you cite there of brothers who had allegations made against them or who admitted there was some truth or complete truth in the allegations and they stayed working in schools or in Letterfrack and so on, isn't that the position?

A. The position was that if a brother was working in an institution, and I would refer you maybe to No. 6 on page 85, and wherein the institution he had a complaint the judgment seems to have been that if we move him out of an institution there is less danger in a day school. Now, by today's standards if any person is accused of child abuse and found to have abused a child he is not permitted to have any contact in any circumstance with children. At the time it seems the judgment was that an institution was too dangerous because they were with them all day and that it was less dangerous in a day school, which I think is rather fallacious.

Q. Do you think that in let's say the 50's and 60's the atmosphere in Letterfrack would have been conducive to reporting by boys of incidents of sexual abuse?

A. Well, I do. Looking at the incidents, for instance the one on page 84 where Br. Y had a complaint, the boys immediately went to the brother and told them. I was talking to a brother two days ago who was in charge of the Legion of Mary group and he said, "look, if the boys had anything that they wanted to talk about, they certainly would have talked about that." I refer to the Garda investigation into Letterfrack in the 60's. It says the boys were not aware of any physical or sexual abuse occurring. So sexual abuse of its nature is a very secretive crime.

Q. Well, there is one particular brother, I think he is referred to as Br. BT who has been convicted of the most serious sexual assaults?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it the position that the complaints against him arose sometime later, not while the boys were in the school?

A. Yes. In fact with Br. BT when he was in Letterfrack there was never an allegation of any form of abuse against him. In fact, looking at the visitation reports most of the visitation reports with regard to his work was generally praised so in fact during the time it seems that abuse was taking place unknown to the authorities.

Q. Yes, but what I want you to consider, and I am inviting you to agree if you wish, that tends to suggest that there wasn't an atmosphere which was conducive to boys reporting while they were there?

A. It does.

Q. Wasn't the same true of the other brother who was convicted of sexual offences?

A. Yes, the two brothers who were convicted of sexual abuse, at the time when it happened there was no reporting. I am not sure what the reason for that is.

Q. Can I suggest one to you: Back at that time if a child was to complain that a member of a religious order behaved in such a gross fashion would they not be told to wash their mouth out and go to confession or something like that?

A. Well, I am just looking at the history of the complaints that did come to the knowledge of the authorities and in each case where there was a complaint brought to the knowledge of the authorities they took action so I have no doubt that if any suggestion of child abuse emerged and people learned about it they would have taken action. I think generally sexual abuse, there is fierce pressure on the person being abused to keep it a secret and often they can be threatened, I am talking about current cases. It is of its nature a secret or hidden crime and that's tragic really.

Letterfrack - A Centre of Excellence

THE HEARING RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AFTER THE LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Good afternoon everybody. Very good, Mr. McGovern.

Q. MR. McGOVERN: Thank you, Chairman. Br. Gibson, could I ask you now to go to page 65 which deals with the industrial training and just maybe before dealing with that I know you do indicate in the earlier section before that that there were cultural activities there, you mention the band and the choir and so on, I have no issues to deal with on that, I am not trying to gloss over the fact that these things existed so I am mentioning them here. Could we move on to industrial training. You say there were various trades offered. You say there were those of baker, blacksmith, bootmaker, carpenter, farmer, kitchen worker, painter, plumber, poultry farmer, tailor and wheelwright and there was
a knitting shop as well. Under standard and quality of training, you make an observation at the last paragraph there saying: "It would be fair to say that the training in the various trades was not really satisfactory for a number of reasons." Could you expand on that?

A. Yes, first of all I suppose Letterfrack was in a very isolated position so it was difficult to attract teachers there. The inter-Departmental Committee observed, and I quote: "The location of Letterfrack frustrated the effort to have vocational instruction by qualified vocational teachers introduced." It went on to note also that it wasn't only that remoteness but also it went on to note that the restricted finances of the Vocational Wducational Committee would also militate against provision of such instruction in Letterfrack. Even if they had found teachers who were prepared to go to Letterfrack they hadn't the funding. The second thing was many of the trades that children practised, they weren't going through the normal apprenticeship and therefore when it came to them continuing their training, the training that they had already received was not accepted by the unions and the main reason for that was that the instructors themselves who would have been from the local area weren't members of unions and therefore not recognised by the unions as valid Instructors. There was an inherent difficulty in the training that the young people were getting.

Q. I have up on the screen a document dated 17 May 1973, it's a visitation report, and in the course of that document it says: "The school is situated in a remote area. While Connemara may be renowned for its scenic beauty it cannot be said to be suitable for an establishment of this kind. Its very remoteness renders it impossible for boys to get professional help that these unfortunate boys require."

A. That was to do with mainly the psychological services and it was difficult to get those at that time. At that time the trades would have ceased.

Q. There is another document and it's a document which -- it's hard to make out what the report is, but in the course of the document it states that: "Very few of the boys, less than five, in Letterfrack are from counties west of the Shannon. They are mainly from Dublin, South Leinster or Munster. Having regard to the location of Letterfrack and the home residence of the boys, it would hardly be feasible for a social worker on the staff at Letterfrack school to operate an efficient placement service in their own localities for boys of the school." Is that related to employment or is it in some other way?

A. Well, I am not sure, I think that document might be an appendix of the Cussen Report. I think basically the problem was Letterfrack was remote, it was difficult to get people to teach trades and it was difficult to find psychological services for the boys because of its remoteness.

Q. Yes, that last report I was reading was a report on various institutions but at Letterfrack on 30 July 1971?

A. Yes.

Q. It wouldn't have been the Cussen Report?

A. No.

Q. I think it may have been a Department of Education report. Could I ask you to consider another document please. This is an inspector's report, I don't have a date for this, it was in the Department of Education discovery file and we think it relates to a period around the 40's, but it states that: "In actual fact most of the boys are employed on farms when they leave the schools." Would that be correct?

A. Yes, a lot of them were, yes.

Q. "Even some of them who have been trained in shoe making or tailoring find their way to farming. In such circumstances it is with regret that we submit our opinion that the training which the schools provide in farming is distinctly unsatisfactory." The author of this further down says: "The farms fail, however, to achieve their primary object. They do not serve to train the boys in farming. The boys are little more than juvenile labourers. They are put to work on some manual task such as cleaning barns or feeding cattle." Was there a problem about that, that what was dressed up as training was in fact just menial labour?

A. I would refer you to page 67 which deals with the farm.

Q. Yes.

A. By far the largest percentage of boys who were over 14 worked in the farm. They would have become full timers maybe after 14. Now, it says here that they were involved in the tilling of the soil and the gathering of the peat, the turf. It is said there in the visitation report of 1947: "That the boys trained in farm work generally proved the most successful when they leave school." A report on the occupational training provided in industrial schools in Glencree Reformatory, the document, you have it there on footnote 127: "It was pointed out that the most natural and suitable employment for boys was the farm. It was healthy and holds a great variety and interest, both essential qualities in the education of the adolescent." Now, it is true as it shows on the next page that it indicated that boys who had been trained in other trades found themselves working on the farm. It goes on to express disappointment that the farm generally failed to teach farm management to the boys.

Q. These would have been boys though predominantly from Dublin, would they not?

A. They would.

Q. What benefit would farming training be to them?

A. Well, in the period of that time half the population of Ireland was involved in farm related work so according to Ferriter in his book on "Transformation in Ireland" he says half the employed population of the period of the '30's and 40's were involved in farm related management.

Q. Would many of the boys who finished in Letterfrack and who lived in Dublin, would they leave Dublin to go out and work in farms?

A. What you had was you had boys when they finished school were sent home, went home. Others went to employment. They would have gone to employment in farms in the area. They may or may not have gone
home. Some of them would have gone to England.

Q. What's the understanding of the Christian Brothers about that, about the movement of boys after they left Letterfrack?

A. You have there in page 68 the discharge from the institution. You see there that of the 1356 boys discharged from Letterfrack between 1940 and 1974, 869 of them were discharged to the care of a relative. Now, on the following page then you are talking about this group, a group of 318, who would have been sent directly to employment instead of their homes. They actually wouldn't have been at home, they would have gone directly. At 16 years of age lot of people were involved in work and would have gone straight to work.

Q. Yes, I think it is acknowledged by the Christian Brothers it was difficult to keep tabs on boys from outside Letterfrack, boys in Dublin after they left?

A. It was, yes.

Q. Can we move on then to the issue of absconding. I think that there was a significant rise in the rate of absconding in the late 60's; is that right? A. That's correct. In the late 60's, if you look at the chart on page 75 table 9, you will see that there seems to have been very little absconding up to 1966 and in 1966 to 1971 particularly there was a great increase in absconding.

Q. What was the reason for that?

A. We don't know.

Q. What happened to boys who absconded, were they punished?

A. It could have been that they were, some of them could have been.

Q. Do you know how they were punished?

A. I don't, no.

Q. I see. Moving on to the issue of visits from parents and relatives, was that something which was quite difficult for families?

A. It was. The fact that I think something like 60% of the boys came from the Dublin area, first of all travel in the 40's and 50's would have been very difficult. I note in the 70's there was a scheme prepared by the Government which offered free travel to parents to come and that made it obviously less difficult.

Q. I think that was as far as Galway?

A. That was as far as Galway.

Q. I think Galway was 50 miles away?

A. Well, what used to happen was if the parents arrived in Galway the brothers used to drive the boy to Galway and leave the boy with the parents and wait around in Galway while the boys met the parents and so on for the day and then bring the boy back.

Women's Chins and Trouser Pockets

Q. Can we move on then to the issue of education. You have already described how the boys would have done their Primary Certificate and they were educated. You talk then in your submission about the teacher numbers and you say:

"In accordance with the Department of Education rules the number of teachers on the primary school staff was determined by the number of pupils on the roll."

There is a table there. You say:

"The staff number increased from three to four in 1939 and remained so until 1955 when, because of the reduced enrollment, it was reduced to three."

Then the number went up again to four in 1961, I think, and was more or less unchanged until 1973?

A. Yes. Just about the educational standards reached in the school, I think visitors reporting on the educational standards are quite praiseworthy. It says on page 60 there, it says:

"The boys here are very backward due to previous environmental circumstances rather than to lack of ability. Progress, therefore, is initially very slow and of little benefit to those who spent but a short time here. Those spending a longer time show much improvement and interest in class work."

The Tuairim Report talked about how one boy who had been admitted at the age of 10 had spent a total of two days in school in his life. Despite that many of the boys reached the sixth standard and took their Primary Cert. Again just to highlight that the standard of the Primary Certificate was considered quite high and an important exam for young people as they faced the workplace. A lot wouldn't have gone to secondary school education. You will see there in table 8, you have 1943 to '67 when the Primary Cert was stopped. You have the number of boys in the class in each year, then the number presented for the exam. Now, a lot of schools in fact didn't reveal how many boys or girls in fact were in the class, they just give the results, 25 got their results. What we are showing here is that we have the class numbers and the number of people who sat the exam. So the percentage pass rate is reflecting not the people who sat the exam but the people who actually were in the class itself.

Q. How many of the boys, what percentage of the boys would have done the exam?

A. You have it there. In sixth class in 1943 there were seven in the class.

Q. How many were in the school?

A. In the school it would have gone from primary one to primary seven so there would have been a variety of numbers in each of the years. In sixth class of that year there were those small numbers so it was a small number in each of the classes.

Q. Would all boys be expected to get up to sixth standard?

A. When a boy reached the age of 14 if he was in sixth class and didn't get the exam he then went to trades. So every boy under the age of 14 would have been expected to sit the exam.

Q. I see. Can we look at the issue of staff training?

A. Yes.

Q. You say the recognised staff included a lay teacher up to 1940, otherwise the staff consisted entirely of Christian Brothers.

A. Yes.

Q. You describe then that they would have been either the holders of the national teacher qualification of St. Mary's Christian Brothers Training College, Marino, Dublin or had completed one year of the course and by arrangement with the Department of Education under the Monastic Capitation Scheme of obtaining practical teaching experience prior to returning to training college?

A. Yes. In actual fact normal teachers training nowadays involves a student going to a training college and spending say three years or four years training during which they do short periods of teacher training practice out in a school. The Christian Brothers in the early 1940's and maybe earlier thought that a better way was where a brother did a year's training in a college and got the basics of teaching and then went out and had a few years experience teaching. Then came back after two, three or four years and did the second year training. It was a two year training period. They had the benefit of practical experience in the classroom. When they came back for their second year they had all the experience so when the teacher, the professor was giving the theory they could apply that to very practical experience of the years that they were out. With regard to brothers in Letterfrack, some of the brothers would have finished their training totally. Other brothers would have done the first year, gone out teaching, done their second year and were now under probation because following the two year training there was a year's probation after that so some of them would be in that category and others would have been brothers who having finished their first year would be there in Letterfrack, chosen because it was felt they were suitable for it, have had experience there and then gone back to second year training.

Q. Could I just ask you about another aspect of training which isn't teacher training, but the sort of training Christian Brothers would have got themselves in a general way to inform them. There is a paper which was written by a former brother and I have to say he is a brother who has been convicted of sexual assault on pupils in Letterfrack which is entitled "Memories of Letterfrack." He is trying to deal with his concept of the Christian Brother mentality of the late 1960's. In the course of this article he talks about how they were trained, it's going up there on the screen. He says in the first paragraph that:

"There was a regimental attitude to body functions and the oppressive ban on friendships."

He talks, without going into details there, that even such mundane bodily functions as urination and defecation were controlled and you could only use certain toilets, of how, when you were having a shower, there was an enormous military regime in place and then a moment's silence when you recited a prayer before bath to protect us from any form of bad thoughts or immodest touches. The showers were conducted in silence. He describes how friendships with other postulants or recruits as he called them were actively discouraged, that boys who were trained to be brothers would be moved even in the refectory if they were showing any friendship towards people, that they were told to avoid contact. They were totally to exclude female company and to avoid women especially their mothers and only to look at a woman's chin when she was talking and never into her face and eyes. Now, first of all, do you have any general comment to make on whether this regime that he describes as a form of training for Christian Brothers is accurate or not?

A. First of all, I would have to say that I don't think it's accurate.

Q. In what way?

A. The first thing, I think this document was written as a Garda response to serious allegations of abuse. In my view this is trying to justify the abuse that took place. I was in training around the same time as this brother, a year or two after. I think it's preposterous what he is saying.

Q. Are you saying then that there was no protocol in place to admonish brothers against forming any sort of close relationship with another brother?

A. I think there were a number of things. I think it's probably quite a complex thing. A lot of the young people joining the brothers at this time would have been very young, they would have been probably 15/16. It's a time psychologically where the whole homosexual dimension of sexual formation becomes -- it's a sort of latent period of sexual homosexuality. Obviously the people in authority were aware of that so they were taking normal precautions that there wouldn't be active sexual activity in a boarding school, which unfortunately there is or can be in boarding schools. That was one thing. The second thing was when brothers take a vow of celibacy they take a vow to extend their love to all people rather than focussing on a partner so their work and their ministry and so on is to all people. It was highlighted in our formation that we are not here to form close and intimate relationships with people.

Q. Do you think the training went so far as to actively discourage you to form any forms of friendships. I am not talking about improper friendships but friendships generally?

A. I would say that there was a tendency to do that. I would also say that a lot of brothers survived very well and formed very firm and strong relationships, but there was an awareness that brothers could develop relationships that were not healthy.

Q. I understand that, but I am just wondering if the training, when you look back on it now, perhaps had inherent dangers in it in terms of being able to relate to people for some brothers, would you have view on that?

A. I think all people have difficulty of relating or can have difficulties of relating. I went through the same sort of system which he describes in a way that I wouldn't accept.

Q. Is it the way he describes it or are you saying that the training didn't encompass these things. For example, being advised to sow up your trouser pockets?

A. That's untrue.

Q. Hands in pockets was regarded as a danger to chastity?

A. It is ridiculous.

Q. You were never told that?

A. Never. There are lots of things in that document that are totally off the wall. It's sad to see reading them and it would seem to me when you compare this document written when the unfortunate brother or former brother was accused of abuse is writing this and when you compare that to the document he wrote when he was actually in Letterfrack where he describes the work of the brothers and I refer you to the ...(INTERJECTION)

Q. This is the "The Cause for Concern" document?

A. Yes, I refer you to, I just haven't got it to hand here, but the last paragraph, in fact the last page of that, maybe if I can get it.

Q. We will put that up on the screen. I just want to make sure there is no names in it now. In fact, Chairman, there are too many names in this.

A. I will just read a few sections.

Q. If you could omit the names please.

A. This is a brother who was in Letterfrack, very competent guy, but has serious allegations of abuse against him. His final paragraph says: "Let's hope that the gates of St. Joseph's Letterfrack will remain open to the underprivileged and closed to the auctioneers as a summary comment." He talks further on up at the second paragraph of page 47: "The Christian Brother's ability to impart this sound Catholic education qualifies them for working with underprivileged children. Many of the boys who were sent to the institute conducted by the congregation benefit greatly from the training they get so much so that when they return home they lead lives much different from the career of crime that they originally embarked upon." Then I refer to page 45 where it talks about the weight and so on of the boys. It says: "The remarkable difference is I think a tribute to the Christian Brothers who by their tradition for sound learning and progress succeeded in mitigating much of the backwardness in the children sent to their industrial schools. Without this tradition the figure for backwardness would be as high as that for reformatory schools, none of which are run by us." Maybe just to highlight that this document is pointing out the very valuable contribution of the brothers and this young man was pointing to all that was positive in the school. This second document "Memories of Letterfrack" written for the Garda , he is in my view trying to explain the reason for child abuse. It is unfortunate that child abuse cannot be justified just by what a person would consider inadequate formation.

Q. Can I just ask you in what context was the "Cause for Concern" document written?

A. The "Cause for Concern" document seems to have been written for a chapter that was coming where he felt that reformatory schools or industrial schools were going to be closed. He felt that there was need for this type of education for boys who were wayward. His cause for concern was that the work of Edmund Rice which started off, he has a question here on page 1: "The cause of Edmund Rice which was for young people and poor children would be neglected." He says: "Are we witnessing the complete shut down of institutes for underprivileged children. Who is responsible? Questions such as these cannot be answered satisfactorily." What he is saying is the cause for concern is that there was need for a type of education for these children and the danger was that we were going to close them.

Q. Do you know when that document was written?

A. My understanding is, I remember myself reading it about 1970 so I think it would have been written in probably '69. I remember years ago reading it and feeling that that was an interesting document.

Q. Can I invite you to look at a document I am going to put up on the screen by a same author which was dated September 1972. At the top of the page there he deals with lack of trained brothers: "Brothers come here fresh and green from normal schools quite unprepared for what they meet here. When faced with awkward situations they do not know how to react. Such changes have been disastrous. Brothers coming here need training in delinquent care." Now, I accept that's a slightly different issue, but do you feel that when you look at the entire nature of the training that the brothers were well prepared to deal with young boys in a residential institution like St. Joseph's Letterfrack?

A. Well, I suppose what I would say is this: Brothers were trained to be teachers. There was no training for residential child care. There was no State training, there was no State funding. There was no courses on. I think the first course in child care, serious course, was in Kilkenny in 1970 and one of our brothers went on that course when it started. There wasn't any form of child care formation. There were occasional day courses or day seminars in child care in the 1950's, but other than that there was no proper training available and certainly no funding for it. I would say the brothers who went to these institutions were chosen specially, a lot of them were of the highest calibre. There were some who unfortunately were found to have abused. I suppose it's particularly concerning that brothers who were not trained; in other words, a brother who was say a kitchen brother or a non-teaching brother probably hadn't the same sort of training that a teaching brother had -- well, he hadn't -- and maybe, therefore, hadn't that same appreciation for the ministry of care to young people that a brother would have had.

MR. McGOVERN: Chairman, I am about to move on to another topics.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I was just going to let you go until we finished a particular topic. Shall we say 2:00. Thank you very much.

(LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT)

Letterfrack Hearings - Dead Children

Q. Yes. Can I ask you to move on then to the next area which I went to discuss with you which are deaths in Letterfrack. I know the Christian Brothers have some things to say about suggestions surrounding deaths in Letterfrack. Maybe you would like to deal with that issue? A. Okay. I just would like to come back after that to the quality of the relationship between the boys and the brothers and maybe we could do that. Q. If you want to do that now? A. I think I maybe would do that now because I think it fits in. I am conscious that there have been over the last years since the apology of the Taoiseach a lot of complaints, 449 complaints about the experience of boys in Letterfrack. Prior to that, to the television programmes and to the apology of the Taoiseach, we had twelve complaints. Now, Professor Denis O'Sullivan in the late 60's asked permission to do his Ph.D. on the industrial school and its impact on children as a socialising agency. He applied to the Resident Manager who said you can come whenever you want. He used to turn up from around 1968 onwards, unannounced, and he would turn up and he would interview boys, teachers and whoever he wanted to. He in terms of the relationship between the boys and the brothers he quotes various comments which you have there. I won't go to them all, but for instance he says: "I have never spoken like friendly to a teacher before, it's hard to get used to. I hated teachers, all my mates did too. It's different here. If they saw me they would wonderwhat happened to me. They would probably think I had gone soft." Another one said: "Boys where I come from don't understand about Letterfrack, you have to act differently here. The worst part of life in Letterfrack is when you feel like doing a bunk andeveryone says 'to have sense, cop yourself on'." The inter-Departmental visit in 1962, which was a significant visit, said: "The boys seemed happy and not at all cowed and there appeared to be a good relationship between them and the brothers. The manager seems a sensible, humane man." The visitation records where the brothers visited Letterfrack on an annual basis commented on the good natured quality of the boys and on the generalatmosphere of the place. One visitor said: "The boys seemed to feel a happy freedom." It is true that in the early 40's no such comments exist. Q. Would you agree that it's also the case that there are a number of complaints of abuse against certain brothers in Letterfrack during that period you referred to? A. I am. At the time there was no knowledge of those complaints, but I am aware of that. I am also aware that a lot of boys at the time were not aware that there was any problem with physical abuse or sexual abuse and we have Garda statements signed by boys who were in Letterfrack saying that at the time they were there they were not aware of any form of physical or sexual abuse.Just continuing with the visitor, he says: "The four brothers in charge of the school are earnest and efficient and treat the boys with kindness and sympathy so that a cheerful happy atmosphere pervades the classrooms." He talked about the boys being cheerful and bright. It says: "The pupils are well taught and receive a very sympathetic treatment from all the brothers." Q. I don't want to cut you short. I mean it's clear there are other quotes there which are positive and rather than going through them individually what you are saying to the Commission is that there were reports indicatinga good relationship between the brothers and the boys? A. That's it. I think just highlighting the fact that these are contemporary comments at the time when the institution was there, that these were the reports of people who were living there at the time even though maybe subsequently the comments are quitenegative. Q. Yes. A. You want to go to deaths? Q. Do you think when you are talking about contemporaneous reports, that back in let's say the 50's and 60's, if we take that period, if somebody was to make a complaint, whatever about physical abuse, sexual abuse by a member of a religious order, how do you think that would have been received? A. I think we will maybe wait until we deal with the allegations of abuse because what you have there is actual letters written by boys about sexual abuse that they experienced and the Resident Manager, certainly talking to two of them, one of whom is dead now, they were very insistent that a boy had free access to them at all times. In fact, what you see there is that when abuse did take place, the recorded ones that we have, the boys were able to give the sort of complaint that they wanted, but I have no doubt that there were others who weren't. Q. Okay. The impact of institutional care on children is another area of your submission. I think we can move on because I think that's a kind of ageneral thing which can be dealt with under the other headings? A. Okay. Q. We have already spoken of the impact of institutional care on brothers and their workload. Going back to the topic I was raising a moment ago on deaths in Letterfrack. First of all, could you give some information to the Commission on the number of deathsover a period and put them in historical context? A. Okay. Well, between 1891 and 1956, 74 boys were interred in the cemetery of Letterfrack. Between roughly the same period 1896 and 1970, 26 other boys from the school died after being discharged from Letterfrack to employment or sent home and were buried in cemeteries around the country. You are talking about 100 boys died in Letterfrack over the period of its existence. I think a particularly difficult time in Letterfrack was in 1918 when seven boys died within a period of seven days. This was a time when one source records the great flu as claiming 14,000 lives in a three month period in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Christian Brothers in their history of the institute refers to the impact of that experience where it said the boys were stunned but also numbed because of the many companions who had died at that time. Q. I think that number that you referred to was an exceptional number in a short period -- A. Exactly. Q. -- and related as you say to that great flu epidemic? A. So generally in terms of deaths, you have in your appendix No. 7 details of the deaths in Letterfrack. You have there the name of the person, their date of birth, their date of death, the cause of death and the details of their death. They go from pneumonia, TB, meningitis, cardiac failure, encephalitis, asphyxia due to drowning, one boy died while on holidays, epilepsy and an accident when the boy had been discharged. In a sense what we have here is quite a number of boys who died but not a percentage higher than the normal rate of deaths that you would have in the country. There was a cemetery close to the brother's residence in Letterfrack with wooden crosses erected over the graves of the boys you died. Q. You have given a description of the cemetery, I don't think it's necessary to go into that. There was something that happened in 2002 concerning that cemetery and allegations that boys had been secretly buried in unmarkedgraves. Would you like to deal with that issue? A. Yes, I would. There were allegations in 2002 that residents had been secretly buried in unmarked graves both inside and outside the cemetery in Letterfrack. We found those allegations regrettable and we know that they are not true. A lot of members of the congregation, and particularly those who worked in Letterfrack, were very upset because of those unfounded complaints. Each of the 100 boys who died in the course of the 86 years during which Letterfrack was an industrial school died as a result of sicknesses or because of fatal accidents or illnesses. Those fatal accidents occurred when the boys were no longer in Letterfrack. There was a case that brought a lot of media attention in 2001 when a young boy died while he was on holiday in 1970. There was allegations in the media that he had died as a result of being struck. Because of the pressure the Garda held an Inquiry, the body was exhumed and it was examined and the postmortem states, and Iquote: "There is no evidence that any violent act caused or contributed to his death." Then there were a lot of allegations about the tragic death of a former pupil in Letterfrack where he died as a result of an accident? Q. Just before you move on to that, dealing with that postmortem report, it does postulate that perhaps that boy had died of a middle ear infection? A. Correct. Q. "Which spread to the brain causing encephalitis or a cerebral abscess which, if untreated, would have led to his death." Then the following appears: "This would have been painful and he would have complained of sore neck, earache and headaches." Is there anything in the medical records to show that a boy was being treated for painful ... A. I would have to check that from the medical record, I just haven't got that information here, but I would just have to check that. It could well be thatthere was, I don't know. Q. It seems to suggest that the cause of death was clearly not related to a trauma, but was related to something which would have been quite painful andongoing for some time. A. Yes. He was on holidays, whether it began whether he was on holidays, I am not sure. Q. I see. Would you like to go on then? A. The tragic death of a former pupil in Letterfrack. One of the newspaper articles said that his neck was broken in a farming accident and said this happened on the brother's farm. Then they talk about another death and how a short tempered Christian Brother shoved lads nearest to him, the whole group toppled on top of him and when the melee cleared John was crumpled dead at the foot of the stairs. Those are totally false. The Tuam Herald at the time in 1953 talked about the boy, who was a fine lad, who was killed almost instantaneously it says on Tuesday evening when a donkey and cart, which he was driving on the farm near Tuam, overturned and pinned him underneath. The brothers hadn't a farm in Tuam and obviously the boy had died away from Letterfrack. Similarly the other boy who had, according to the papers, been shoved by a Christian Brother, it says that he passed away unexpectedly with feelings of deep regret away in the employment of a Mr. McGuinness. He passed away unexpectedly and he was buried in Letterfrack and an inquest was not considered necessary. In other words, he had suffered himself from infantile paralysis and died in his sleep. In fact there seems to have been a huge concern that boys were buried secretly, died, and there is no shred at all of truth in that. Q. I think in September 2002 the News of the World claimed that a single headstone was erected in the dead of night in the cemetery and made somecomment about that? A. It's untrue. I just haven't got the booklet here with me, you probably have it there -- oh, I have it here. In fact the situation was that in the early 60's, Hurricane Debbie I think it was, knocked a huge number of trees in the Letterfrack area and as a result a lot of the crosses were damaged and it was decided to erect in daylight the headstone. It was ordered from one of the monumental sculptors in Galway and it was erected in the normal fashion. There was no idea of anythingbeing done in any secretive way. Q. In the course of this article apparently it was claimed that 17 boys had died and were buried in irregular circumstances and that the dead boys were simply wrapped in blankets and dropped in lime which quickly dissolved their bodies, wiping out any tracethat they ever existed. Have you any comment on that? A. It's absolutely untrue. They died at different periods. They would have been buried in coffins so the idea that 17 would be buried together who died at different times sounds ludicrous. Every boy who died there was buried in the normal Christian fashion. They were marked and when all the crosses were destroyed by either the wind or by invading cattle in the area or where it wasn't clearly identified where each boy's remains were, they erected this headstone. Now, what the paper did was they looked at the deaths as noted in the headstone and they did rather shoddy research and claimed all sorts of things that the deaths weren't registered which is not true. They just hadn't looked and done their research properly. Every death in Letterfrack is fully accounted for, death certificates are available, and where they were buried in most cases it is known. For those who were buried outside Letterfrack there may be one or twocases where ...( INTERJECTION) Q. Did you inform the News of the World that they were misled? A. We did. Q. What did they do about it? A. Nothing. Q. I see. I think in an article on 22 September 2002? A. Yes. Q. I don't know if it's the same article, there was an exclusive that they published in the course of which they said: "That murdered gangster Martin 'The General' Cahill was sent there -- meaning Letterfrack -- as a lad and later put his shocking brutality down to what he learned from the brothers he called the 'Mad Monks.'" Is there any record in St. Joseph's Letterfrack that he was eversent there? A. I am not sure there is. I would just have to check that, but my memory is that he wasn't there. I wouldn't be 100% sure of that. Q. The author of this article that's attached to your submission states the records of the Christian Brothers do not show that Martin Cahill was ever apupil in St. Joseph's school Letterfrack? A. Yes. Q. You have nothing further to add? A. No, that says it all.