I. INTRODUCTION

This is a review by the Victims’ Rights Committee (hereafter “Committee”) of an investigation of sexual abuse allegations lodged against Msgr. Michael Smith Foster by Paul Edwards (hereafter “Foster investigation”). The Foster investigation¹ was conducted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston (hereafter “RCAB” ) between August 15, 2002 and October 30, 2002. The RCAB concluded at the end of its investigation that Edwards’ allegations were “unsubstantiated.” On October 15, 2003 Edwards formally contacted this Committee to request a review of the Foster investigation. (R.1)

On January 22, 2004 this Committee sent written notification of this review process to the head of the RCAB, Archbishop Sean O’Malley. This notification identified relevant documents in the Committee’s possession. (R. 2) This Committee invited the RCAB to respond and/or provide it with additional documents. The RCAB was advised that if no response was received by a certain date, it would be assumed that all documents known to the RCAB and deemed relevant and necessary to a full and objective review of this matter were in the Committee’s possession.

On February 6, 2004 this Committee received a letter from Reverend John Connelly, Jr., Secretary to Archbishop O’Malley, stating that “the Archdiocese will not participate in the review. . .and therefore will not submit documents as you requested.” (R. 3)

1. Standard of Review

This Committee has undertaken to determine whether the RCAB adhered to its own applicable policies and procedures in the handling of the Foster investigation.

2. Materials Reviewed

This Committee based its review on applicable Church policies and procedures. In addition, Edwards submitted to this Committee pertinent documents generated in connection with the Foster investigation that could personally be acquired by him or his legal representatives. Public documents were also obtained. The Committee based its review solely on these written records and did not interview witnesses. Full copies of identified records are on file with the Committee. (See Appendix A for a listing of records.)

A. Sources of Applicable RCAB Policies and Procedures

This Committee identified the following sources of policies and procedures under which the RCAB was operating at the time of the Foster investigation:

¹ Although this report refers to “the Foster investigation” in the singular, there were, in fact, two distinct investigation periods. Thus, this report will use the terms “first investigation” and “second investigation.”

• Pastoral Policy for Handling Allegations of Sexual Misconduct ² with Minors by Clergy of the Archdiocese (hereafter “1993 Pastoral Policy”) adopted by the RCAB in 1993 ³ (R. 4)
• Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (hereafter “the Charter”) US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), June 2002 (R. 5)
• 1983 Code of Canon Law (hereafter “Canon Law”) (R.6)
• Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons (hereafter “Essential Norms”) USCCB, 2002 (R. 7)
• Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children (hereafter the “May 2003 Policies”) decreed by the RCAB on May 30, 2003 ⁴ (R. 8)

II. FACTS IN THE FOSTER INVESTIGATION

1. First Investigation

On August 14, 2002, a civil lawsuit was filed by Edwards against the RCAB in Suffolk County Superior Court (hereafter “Edwards’ civil complaint.”) This arose out of alleged

2

“Sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” are used interchangeably by the RCAB. The Preamble of Essential Norms provides in relevant part the following definition: (R.7)

Sexual abuse of a minor includes sexual molestation or sexual exploitation of a minor and other behavior by which an adult uses a minor as an object of sexual gratification. Sexual abuse has been defined by different civil authorities in various ways, and these norms do not adopt any particular definition provided in civil law. Rather, the transgressions in question relate to obligations arising from divine commands regarding human sexual interaction as conveyed to us by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue …Thus, the norm to be considered in assessing an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor is whether conduct or interaction with a minor qualifies as an external, objectively grave violation of the sixth commandment. A canonical offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue …need not be a complete act of intercourse. Nor, to be objectively grave, does an act need to involve force, physical contact, or a discernible harmful outcome.

Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, 2002 - CIC, c. 1395 §2, CCEO, c. 1453 §1; Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, USCCB, 1995, p. 6; CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1.

3

Notes of the RCAB’s interview of Foster on August 18, 2002 confirm that the investigation was conducted according to the 1993 Pastoral Policy. (R.4)

⁴ While the May 2003 Policies were not formally in place at the time of the Foster investigation, they are relevant to Edwards’ formal request in 2003 for information and files generated in connection with the RCAB’s investigation.

sexual misconduct by Foster between 1980 and 1985. (R.9) Specifically, Edwards’ civil complaint stated:

1. Foster invited the plaintiff to his personal living quarters located in the rectory of Sacred Heart Parish.
2. While the plaintiff was in the private bedroom of Foster, Foster requested that the plaintiff remove his “street clothes” when entering into Foster’s personal living quarters, particularly if and when the plaintiff sat on Foster’s bed.
3. While the plaintiff was in the private bedroom of Foster, the plaintiff did in fact remove his ‘street clothes’ at the request of Foster and sat upon Foster’s bed located in the rectory of Sacred Heart Church in Newton, MA.
4. On numerous occasions, Foster would also remove his clothes, and the two would sleep together in Foster’s bed at the rectory of the Sacred Heart Church.
5. While sleeping together in Foster’s bedroom in the rectory of Sacred Heart Church, Foster illegally and inappropriately touched and/or fondled the plaintiff in a sexual manner while in bed with the plaintiff.

A copy of Edwards’ civil complaint was submitted to the RCAB on behalf of Edwards for the purpose of initiating an internal canonical investigation of Foster. Interview notes from RCAB files indicate the RCAB received a copy of Edwards’ civil complaint sometime between August 14, 2002 when it was officially filed and August 18, 2002 when RCAB officials interviewed Foster. (R.10)

In a letter dated August 24, 2002 Rev. Sean Connor, the RCAB Delegate of Investigations, advised Foster that an investigation of Edwards' allegations had been initiated in conjunction with Foster’s “acceptance of being placed on voluntary administrative leave.”(R.11)

The August 24th letter stated that on August 22, the RCAB received a telephone call from Joseph Doherty, Foster’s civil counsel, requesting that Connor “not interview potential witnesses in this investigation. . .” Connor wrote, “I am uncertain as to the meaning of his (Doherty’s) request, and it is necessary for me to point out that this request will delay and possibly hinder our canonical investigation.” In this letter, Connor asked Foster: “Please send me your proofs so that I may include them in this investigation . . .”

On August 22^nd and August 23^rd, newspaper stories published information accusing Edwards of making various false statements unrelated to the Foster matter. (R. 37, 38)

A Mutual Release dated September 3, 2002 between Edwards and Foster ended Edwards’ civil complaint against the RCAB and Foster. (R.12)

Shortly after the Mutual Release was announced, Foster announced his “exoneration” at a press conference held in the offices of Bischoff-Solomon, a public relations firm he had hired. (R.41)

In an email dated September 3, 2002 Foster asked Amy Strickland, his canonical advocate, to post a statement to a canon law list serve. The statement by Foster included the following: “The suit was baseless and the allegations were false.” (R.13)

In a letter dated September 3, 2002 to Connor from Foster, Foster stated: “I will provide you by the end of the week, with information in my possession obtained as a result of my investigation . . .” (R.14)

A letter dated September 4, 2002 to Connor from Foster stated that documents from Foster’s “investigation” are included. (R.15) These are referred to as: an affidavit from Foster himself, ⁵ an affidavit from his lawyer, Joseph Doherty, Jr. (R.16), a letter from former Catholic Youth Organization members (R.17), a letter from a Foster supporter (R.18), and an affidavit dated August 29, 2002 from Ned Cassem MD, a Jesuit priest, psychiatrist, and consultant to the RCAB. (R.19) According to Cardinal Law in his January 22, 2003 Deposition (R.20), Cassem was “brought in on the Michael Foster case.”

On September 5, 2002 Edwards took and passed a polygraph exam. (R. 21)

On September 12, 2002 the first investigation was closed. (R. 22)

2. Second Investigation

On September 12, 2002 Edwards met with RCAB officials at the offices of his lawyer, Eric Parker. (R.23) According to an RCAB statement: “. . . the complainant contacted the Archdiocese of Boston to make a formal complaint and offer new information regarding the allegation previously investigated.” (R.22)(

RCAB records indicate that on September 13, 2002 a meeting of seven RCAB officials was held to discuss the Foster matter “in light of the new evidence.” (R.24) A Decree issued the same day by Rev. Walter Edyvean, Vicar General/Moderator of the Curia, instructed the Delegate of the Archbishop to conduct a preliminary canonical investigation “due to the seriousness of this allegation.” (R.25)

During Edwards’ interview with RCAB officials on September 12, he provided details of alleged “inappropriate behavior” that took place in Foster’s bedroom on many occasions. He described “pillow fights” that developed into “wrestling matches” where Edwards was “being forced down and pinned” while both were in their underwear. Edwards described that Foster “would spread myself on him.” They were in their underwear

⁵ The RCAB declined to provide the Committee with a copy of Foster’s Affidavit referred to in this letter.

because according to Edwards, Foster “had a rule” that “you couldn’t wear street clothes in the bed.” (R.23)

Edwards stated that they would lie together “ridiculously close touching each other skin wise.” There were several occasions of this sexualized wrestling. The final incident involved Foster “having an erection in the bed.” Edwards stated: “I felt it up against my bottom – then I was done – that was it.” (R.23)

Edwards told RCAB officials that sometimes he was “afraid” of Foster and “uncomfortable,” that he felt “mixed messages” because “he was my friend and confidant

– I knew that he knew my parents were strict – that made me comfortable – he understood me as an older person.” (R.23)

When RCAB officials asked Edwards how he felt about Foster today, Edwards stated “I find it an unbelievable betrayal - huge betrayal.” Edwards added: “I heard he said publicly it was a lie. . . I was angry. I was betrayed twenty years ago because I think – the knowledge of an inappropriate behavior with a child goes beyond disgust.” Edwards also talked about his “struggle with his faith” and how he “can’t trust a priest” and that his “greatest challenge is not putting a bullet in my head.” (R.23) ⁶

In a September 14, 2002 email sent by Connor to Amy Strickland, Foster’s canonical advocate, Connor expressed concern that “statements from the investigation are being given to the media and possible witnesses in the case.” (R.26)

In a September 14, 2002 email from Cassem to RCAB Deacon Anthony Rizzuto, Cassem communicated confidential information about his evaluation and opinions of Edwards.

(R.27)

A document dated September 19, 2002, stated that the RCAB met on that day with Rev. Rodney Copp, and that the priest had known Paul Edwards “for about 10 – 12 years.” Notes from this meeting reflect that before Copp was interviewed by the RCAB, he spoke on more than one occasion with Foster and his attorneys. (R.28)((

A document dated September 23, 2002 from Connor to Rev. John Beal, another appointed Advocate for Foster, stated: “The evidence in this case is being kept in the Chancery. Should Msgr. Foster wish to review appropriate material which he may be entitled to, with or without you present as his advocate, he may do so.” (R.29)(

On October 7, 2002, Connor sent to Cassem a handwritten note in which he asked him to review a summary of their telephone conversation of September 25th. In this note, Connor attempted to clarify how Cassem had arrived at the opinion in his signed affidavit without having reviewed any medical records or interviewed Edwards. (R.30)

⁶ These are excerpts from Edwards’ interview. A full description can be found in the September 3, 2003 interview notes.

In a memo dated October 10, 2002 from Connor to Foster, Connor stated that Ellen Martin, co-counsel for Foster, “communicated suggestions for the affidavit” to Cassem and that Cassem believed his affidavit was completed by Foster’s lawyers before being sent to him for his signature. Connor stated that: “Father Cassem did not interview the complainant, Paul Edwards. Father Cassem based his affidavit and medical reviews on ^nd and 3^rd hand reports and conversations with Ellen Martin, Esq. (co-counsel for Msgr. Foster) and Rev. Msgr. Michael Smith Foster, J.C.D. (alleged perpetrator.)” (R.31)

In an October 17th handwritten letter from Cassem to Connor, Cassem wrote: “Your implication that the affidavit is fraudulent angers me. . . angers me that your steadfast focus is on the wording and not on the message. You are stuck on the wrong issue here – What are the FACTS, not what is the down and dirty truth. You sounded like an enemy of Msgr. Foster. . .” (R.32)

On October 31, 2002, the second investigation was closed. On that date, in a public statement (hereafter the “October 31^st Statement”) RCAB Spokeswoman Donna Morrissey announced: “In accord with our policy, the Delegate represented the case to the Review Board. The recommendation of both the Delegate and the Review Board were forwarded to His Eminence, Cardinal Law. The Delegate and the Review Board both recommended that the case be closed and that the priest be returned to active ministry with no restrictions. Cardinal Law has reviewed the recommendations. He has determined that the complaint is unsubstantiated; therefore, in accord with canon 1718, this investigation has now been closed.” (R.22)

No further information has ever been provided by the RCAB to explain the decision to close the Foster investigation.

III. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE RCAB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

1. Objective Investigation and Careful Interview of Complainant

Article 5 of the Charter (R.5) provides:

When an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or a deacon is

received, a preliminary investigation, in harmony with canon law (CIC, cc.

1717-1719; CCEO, cc. 1468-1470), will be initiated and conducted promptly

and objectively.⁷

Section A, 1 of the 1993 Pastoral Policy (R.4) states:

⁷ Article 7, 3.1 of the May 2003 Policies s (R.8) expands on this “objectivity” standard: “Competent and unbiased persons will uphold due process by a fair, objective and thorough examination of the complaint.”

The Delegate or Deputy Delegate, or individuals who are appointed by them because of their expertise, will carefully interview the complainant and/or other persons making the allegation in order to gain as clear and specific an understanding of the alleged misconduct as possible.

The Archdiocese is committed to a careful listening and a respectful response to any complaint made by any person who believes he or she, or any other person, has been harmed by sexual misconduct of a cleric.

2. Protection of Complainant’s Reputation

Canon Law (R.6) provides:

Due care will be taken so that the good reputation of any person is not endangered by the communication of information during an investigation or canonical process related to a complaint of child abuse. The Archdiocese will strive to balance its doctrinal and canonical responsibilities to protect the good reputation, rights, and privacy of all persons involved and the common good of the Church. (canons 220; 223; 1717 §2) No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation, which a person possesses, or to injure the right of any person to protect his or her privacy. (canon 220)

The Charter (R.5) indicates:

Within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved, dioceses/eparchies will deal as openly as possible with members of the community. (Article 7, p. 34)

3. Appropriate and Timely Disclosure of Information

Article 4, section 2.1 of the May 2003 Policies (R.8) states:

The Archdiocese will ensure that the complainant … receive appropriate and timely information pertaining to any relevant actions taken by the Archdiocese.

4. Written Decree on Findings

Essential Norms §13 (R.7) provides:

When the Archbishop determines that the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation indicates that the complaint is false, or that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the probability of a delict, he will issue a written decree giving reasons for the finding. . . (10.3)

The Charter (R.5) provides:

Each diocese/eparchy will develop a communications policy that

reflects a commitment to transparency and openness. (Article 7)

5. Complainant’s Access To Information

Access of a complainant to records generated in connection with an investigation of alleged sexual misconduct was provided in the RCAB’s May 2003 Policies decreed by Apostolic Administrator Rev. Richard Lennon. These were to go into effect on July 1, 2003. (R.8) Subsection 2.6 of the May 2003 Policies states:

Information generated in connection with an investigation of alleged child

abuse will be maintained in a confidential manner. The following persons will

have access to the information:

§ the complainant and his/her lawful representative; § the accused person and his/her lawful representative; § the Delegate for Investigations, members of the investigative team, members

of the Review Board, tribunal officials, and canonical assessors; § the Bishop of a non-incardinated cleric or the competent superior of a member

of an institute of consecrated life, society of apostolic life, or personal

prelature.

Article VII, subsection 3.1 of the May 2003 Policies provides:

…the complainant and the person whose conduct is being investigated will receive due notice of investigations and proceedings, an opportunity to examine written records that will be used in making decisions, and protection of the right to hierarchic recourse and appeal, in accord with the norms of church law ⁸

6. Collaboration in the Review and Revision of RCAB Policies

Article 1, Section 4.3 of the May 2003 Policies (R.8) states:

The Implementation and Oversight Advisory Committee will assist the

Secretary of the Office for Child Advocacy, Implementation and Oversight

in his/her responsibilities, including: collaborating with the Review Board

to review and revise these Policies and Procedures.

⁸ The May 2003 Policies were subsequently changed such that the right of complainants, accused persons, and their legal representatives to receive information generated in connection with an investigation were removed. The revisions also eliminated the right of complainants to examine written records used in making decisions.

Article 1, Section 3 of the May 2003 Policies (R.8) provides:

Any violation of these Policies and Procedures is to be reported directly to the Archbishop. (p. 3)

IV. ANALYSIS OF RCAB ADHERENCE TO APPLICABLE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

1. Did the RCAB Conduct An Objective Investigation and Carefully Interview Edwards?

A. Interview of Relevant Witnesses

Connor reported to Foster in his August 24, 2002 letter that on August 22, 2002 (only days after the first Foster investigation began), Foster’s lawyer, John Doherty, made a direct request to Connor by telephone that the RCAB “not interview potential witnesses in this investigation.” Connor indicated to Foster: “I am uncertain as to the meaning of his request, and it is necessary for me to point out that this request will delay and possibly hinder our canonical investigation.” (R.11)

There is no evidence the RCAB ever objected to or otherwise challenged the inappropriate nature of Doherty’s request.

Evidence before this Committee indicates that the RCAB interviewed only three witnesses, in total, during both investigations; Foster during the first, Edwards and Copp during the second. There is no evidence the RCAB attempted to interview other witnesses, many of whom submitted statements to the RCAB that were accepted as evidence in the investigation.

B. Consideration of Relevant Evidence

During Edwards’ interview with the RCAB, he described certain details of the physical surroundings of Foster’s private residence. (R.23) This information bears significantly on Edwards’ credibility because parishioners were not authorized to enter the private residence. Thus, if Edwards’ correctly described these details, this would have corroborated and lent credibility to his allegations of abuse.

In a September 9th email to Connor, Bruce Cushna, one of Foster’s supporters, wrote: “Msgr. Granville and Father Connelly. . . both ran a ‘tight ship,’ and children would never have been tolerated to visit a curate’s bedroom!” (R.18) However, during the August 18 interview of Foster by the RCAB, when asked “Was Paul Edwards ever in your private quarters in the rectory of Sacred Heart Parish, Newton?, Foster replied: “Yes, it would not have been unusual in the rectory at that time.” When asked “Was Paul Edwards ever in the room where your bed was?” Foster replied, “Yes.” (R.23)

There is no evidence the RCAB took into account Foster’s concession that Edwards had been in his private residence, an apparent violation of the policy and practice of the parish at the time. (R.18) This clearly supports Edwards’ credibility.

Likewise, there is no evidence the RCAB ever sought to determine whether Edwards’ description of the physical surroundings of Foster’s private residence was correct. The RCAB could have spoken with people who would have been authorized to be in the private residence at the time of the alleged inappropriate behavior, such as rectory cleaning staff. That the RCAB failed to assess Edwards’ knowledge of collateral details about Foster, such as the description of his bed, contents of his bathroom, type of underwear Foster wore, etc., prevented the RCAB from assessing objectively Edwards’ credibility.

C. Evaluation of Witness Credibility

1. Edwards

a. Interview Process

The RCAB closed its first investigation without ever having interviewed Edwards. While Edwards did meet with the RCAB the day after Foster was reinstated the first time, this meeting was initiated by Edwards, not the RCAB. During this meeting, Edwards provided significant details of the alleged sexual misconduct. (R.23) The availability of details is an important factor in assessing a witness’ credibility.

Credibility is also affected by a person’s demeanor and presentation. This Committee could not assess these factors as Committee members were not present during Edwards’ interview and no videotape or other recording exists of the meeting.

In assessing credibility, the opinions of others with regard to Edwards’ character can be particularly important. On this issue it is significant that Foster himself wrote a letter of recommendation for Edwards lauding his character and stating: (R.34)

I believe him to be an exceptional young man who exhibits many talents. He has been very active in his church community. He has served as an altar boy, and at present is a master of ceremonies at liturgical functions. He has the ability to exhibit a decorum that is unique among adolescents. He has exhibited leadership qualities…and his exuberance in regard to whatever he is involved in is contagious. He is well respected by his peers and a fine role model for younger adolescents and children. . . Paul exhibits a sensitivity and concern for others. These are two of his finest attributes. ⁹

⁹ Although undated, the letter makes clear that Foster had a basis of knowledge to support his opinions of Edwards. Foster noted at the time he wrote the letter that he had known Edwards for “over five years.”

This information deserves significant weight as it was written years before Foster was under investigation, and at a point in time when he was without an incentive to lie or undermine the credibility of his accuser.

While it is unclear whether the RCAB had a copy of this letter in its investigative file, there can be no doubt that a copy could have been obtained.

b. Impact and Assessment of Allegations Involving Cummings

Notes from the meeting between the RCAB and Edwards indicate Edwards told the RCAB Foster had once warned him “to watch out for Fr. Cummings.” Edwards also stated at this meeting that he told Foster that Cummings had raped him. According to the meeting notes, Edwards believed this conversation occurred after Foster called him upon Foster’s return from studying in Washington. According to Edwards, Foster responded that he “didn’t want to hear any of this. Priests are people, too.” Edwards stated that Foster told him he should “put the incident behind him and move on with his life.” In his interview with the RCAB, Edwards stated: “It was not the reaction I was expecting. I was looking for guidance. . .” (R.23)

Notes from the meeting between the RCAB and Foster indicate that when Foster was asked: “Did Paul Edwards discuss Father William Cummings with you?” he replied, “No.” He then added that he had “no clear recollection” of discussing William Cummings. (R.10)

According to notes from the Edwards’ interview, Edwards told the RCAB that Copp would corroborate some of his statements about Cummings. Edwards said he told Copp around 1992 about having been raped by Cummings and also told him he had shared the information with Foster. (R.23)

Copp told the RCAB he did not recall Edwards telling him that Edwards had informed Foster about the Cummings rape. Copp did confirm, however, that Edwards had told him (Copp) about the Cummings rape. Thus, Copp corroborated Edwards on the collateral issue involving Cummings, which supports Edwards’ credibility. (R.28)

There is no evidence the RCAB took this into account favorably in assessing Edwards’ credibility.

c. Edwards’ Polygraph Exam

While reasonable disagreement exists regarding the reliability and weight of polygraph evidence, it is noteworthy that on September 5, 2002 Edwards took a polygraph test administered by an expert with 28 years of experience. According to the report issued by Richard Johnson, Esq., the examiner who conducted the test, “. . . the results relating to each issue [sexual abuse by Cummings and by Foster] support the truthfulness of Paul Edwards.” (R.21) Edwards’ lawyers informed the RCAB about the results.

There is no evidence the RCAB took this into account in assessing Edwards’ credibility.

d. Affidavits From Witnesses Regarding Edwards’ Veracity

Statements and/or materials from individuals who declared their opinions about Edwards’ character, reputation, and truthfulness were sent to the RCAB from Foster or on behalf of Foster. (R.15) There is no evidence these individuals were interviewed by the RCAB to determine their credibility, bias, motivation to lie or relationship to persons involved. Moreover, there is no evidence Edwards was confronted with these affidavits or given a chance to respond.

e. Investigation of the Truthfulness of Various Collateral Claims

1. Did Edwards Lie About the Cummings Rape?

Edwards’ civil complaint included an allegation that he had been raped by Father William Cummings during a trip to New York City with a Catholic youth group. (R.9) (Cummings died of AIDS in 1994.) In Edwards’ interview with the RCAB, Edwards stated that when he arrived at the hotel he was informed he had been assigned to share a room with Cummings. He stated that in the middle of the night he awoke to find Cummings on top of him. (R.23)

In an August 22, 2002 Boston Globe article, Foster’s supporters, organized by Linda Amicongioli, a London-based public relations person and former Catholic youth group member, contended the rape could not have occurred because the New York trip was not an overnight trip. This error in Edwards’ memory was used to promote the idea that Edwards was also lying about his allegations against Foster. (R.37)

After the second reinstatement of Foster, the Boston Herald confirmed with Delia Brennan, a childhood classmate of Edwards, that Edwards had told her in the early 1990s about his earlier rape by Cummings during an overnight youth group trip. Two other Church sources confirmed that during that period, Cummings supervised an overnight ski trip to New Hampshire for Newton High School students, during the time Edwards was a student there. (R 41)

The RCAB took no steps to clarify with Edwards whether he had confused the location of the overnight trip. Nor is there evidence that the RCAB inquired as to whether it was reasonable for an individual who had been sexually traumatized to have incorrectly recalled the location of, or other collateral information related to, an alleged assault.

This is especially significant because the RCAB knew at the time that another civil complaint against Cummings had been filed by John Doe No. 9 on June 14, 2002, two months before Edwards’ civil complaint was filed. This complaint alleged that when John Doe No. 9 was a minor child, Cummings violated him through “non-consensual sexual conduct, touching, assault and battery, egregious, reprehensible and explicit sexual behavior.” (R.33)

According to a January 15, 2003 Boston Globe article, RCAB Spokesman Rev. Christopher Coyne confirmed that Church lawyer William Rogers, Jr. knew of this first suit against Cummings on September 3, 2002, ten days before the RCAB closed the first Foster investigation. Coyne did not indicate whether Connor knew about the other suit and, if so, when. (R.43)

If Connor did know about the previous complaint, the record is bereft of an explanation for how this bore on the RCAB’s assessment of Edwards’ credibility and what role, if any, it played in the decision to close the Foster investigation. In any case, it appears that Connor’s recommendation was reached without objective consideration of all available facts related to the Cummings issue.

The RCAB’s apparent decision to minimize or disregard Edwards’ allegations of rape by Cummings in the context of its investigation of Foster is particularly noteworthy given that months later, the RCAB agreed to compensate Edwards for his claims against Cummings as part of its global settlement with clergy sexual abuse victims. (R. 48)

2. Did Edwards Lie About His Paralysis?

Foster wrote to Connor on September 4, 2002 and characterized Edwards’ claim that he was paralyzed as untrue. Foster wrote that this was “Edwards other most prominent lie to date (that he is a paraplegic as a result of an injury suffered in a hockey game). . .” (R.15)

Foster’s lawyer, Doherty, sent an affidavit to the RCAB dated September 4 in which he stated he uncovered information that: “. . .in our opinion established conclusively” that Edwards frequently fabricated stories about being injured. (R.16)

Another document in the file stated that Cassem wrote to Rizzuto and said of Edwards: “. . . he has been proved to have fully competent legs. . .” and “Two witnesses have stated that they have seen Paul Edwards standing – something inconsistent with his paraplegia claims.” (R.27) Neither Foster, Foster’s lawyers nor the RCAB or Cassem reviewed or asked to review direct medical evidence from Edwards’ physicians.

The Boston Herald documented Edwards’ handicap in a December 13, 2002 article. The Herald reported that Edwards’ paralysis started in 1993 and was verified in three letters by James Kolb, MD, who diagnosed Edwards’ paraplegia and based his opinion on an MRI that identified lesions on Edwards’ spine. (R.41) The RCAB could have asked Edwards to provide documentation from a medical care provider to determine the truthfulness of this “paralysis” issue. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to ascertain the truth.

3. Did Edwards Lie About Being a Police Officer?

The Affidavit of Foster’s lawyer, Doherty, indicates that “former friends” of Edwards said Edwards falsely claimed to have been a police officer on Martha’s Vineyard. (R.16)

In fact, Edwards was a police officer on Martha's Vineyard. Police Chief Timothy S. Rich of Chilmark and Police Chief Paul Condlin of Edgartown confirmed to the Boston Herald in the December 13, 2002 article that over a four year period Edwards: “. . . was in fact a police officer with police powers.” (R.41)

Foster knew at the time of the RCAB investigation that Edwards had worked as a police officer on Martha’s Vineyard. In a recommendation letter for Edwards written years earlier Foster wrote: “Whether here at the parish, his summer work with the Edgartown Police, or his interaction with his peers, Paul Edwards exhibits a sensitivity and respect for others.” (R.34)

The RCAB could have inquired of Martha’s Vineyard police officials as to the truthfulness of the claim that Edwards lied about having been a police officer. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to ascertain the truth on this issue.

4. Did Edwards Lie about Being Deaf?

In an August 23, 2002 Boston Globe article, it was reported that friends of Edwards from high school stated that after Edwards transferred to Newton North High School, he falsely led others to believe he was deaf. (R.38)

In a Boston Herald article on December 13, 2002, Edward Mulligan, Newton North’s Deaf Education director, confirmed that Edwards was not deaf but that he had a hearing-impaired girlfriend and took a class in sign language. Mulligan remembered that Edwards “was interested in deafness and sign language.” He also told the Herald, “We have a large number of hearing students who take the class.” (R.41)

The RCAB could have inquired of Edwards or Newton High School officials as to the truthfulness of the claim that Edwards lied about being deaf. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to ascertain the truth on this issue.

5. Did Edwards Lie About Being in the Movie “Jaws”?

The Boston Herald also reported in the December 13^th article that friends of Edwards from childhood stated that when Edwards returned home from his 1974 summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard, he told them he had been cast that summer in the filming of “Jaws.” When the film opened a year later, Edwards was not in it.

According to the Herald article, Edwards was a 7-year-old boy at the time and crowds of vacationers were used as extras in the movie. (R.41)

The RCAB could have inquired of Edwards as to the truthfulness of the claim that he lied about being cast in the film. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to ascertain the truth or that the RCAB took into account the fact that Edwards was only seven at the time.

6. Was Edwards a Physical Threat to Foster and Cardinal Law?

In an August 29, 2002 affidavit provided to the RCAB, Cassem opined that Edwards posed a physical threat to Foster. Specifically, Cassem stated: (R.19)

1. Paul Edwards is an accomplished bow hunter and has taken taxidermy classes. It is unknown whether Paul Edwards has access to a gun.
2. Based on all this, I believe that Michael Smith Foster to be in danger. I have advised Msgr. Foster to take precautions, including using a Kevlar vest, to obtain a restraining order if possible, to learn how to use a gun, to contact local police and otherwise be vigilant against possible attack from Paul Edwards.
3. Mr. Edwards’ history is consistent with his being a sociopath or psychopath.
4. His lawsuit is an attack on Michael Smith Foster. Paul Edwards has planned his attack on Michael Smith Foster since at least April 2002 when he gathered support from his friends for the lawsuit. He has attacked Michael Smith Foster with the filing of the lawsuit.
5. In my professional opinion, Paul Edwards represents a threat to Michael Smith Foster’s personal safety and also that of others.

There is no evidence the RCAB took into account that Cassem had been provided with second and third hand information about Edwards from Foster and his agents and that this information formed the basis of this affidavit. (R.31) Cassem never interviewed Edwards or had access to his medical records.

The RCAB could have asked Edwards and/or his medical care providers to address the validity of Cassem’s claims. There is no evidence that Edwards has a history of violence, has been in trouble with the law, or has ever been diagnosed as a psychopath or sociopath. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to ascertain the truth of Cassem’s claims.

2. Copp¹⁰

a. Copp’s Assessment of Edwards’ Credibility

With regard to the credibility of Edwards’ allegations against Foster, Copp told the RCAB, “I doubt sincerely if this is factual.” (R. 28)

¹⁰As Copp appears to be the only person the RCAB interviewed during the second investigation, it is likely the RCAB’s conclusion that Edwards’ claims were unsubstantiated was influenced by Copp’s statement of doubt regarding Edwards’ credibility. Copp’s significance as the lone witness should have prompted the RCAB to be especially conscientious in assessing Copp’s credibility.

As noted above, however, during Copp’s interview with the RCAB, Copp corroborated Edwards’ claim that he had told Copp about the Cummings rape. Copp told the RCAB that at the time of the disclosure, he believed Edwards and told him as much. In his interview with the RCAB, however, Copp indicated that he changed his mind and now doubted Edwards’ veracity. (R.28)

According to the interview, Copp told the RCAB he had conversations with Foster and his lawyers prior to the meeting. While the record lacks details as to what those conversations involved, the reasons Copp cited for questioning Edwards’ credibility were the very same reasons described in documents and affidavits provided to the RCAB by Foster and his lawyers. (R.28) There is no evidence the RCAB took this information into account when assessing Copp’s opinion of Edwards’ veracity.

b. Copp’s Failure To Report the Cummings Rape

Copp stated in his interview that he did not report the Cummings rape to Church or civil authorities because he said Edwards “did not appear to be suicidal, etc.” and he felt that Edwards’ “getting it out” was enough.

There is no evidence the RCAB took into account in assessing Copp’s credibility, the potential legal exposure of Copp and the RCAB for Copp’s failure to report the Cummings rape.

c. Copp’s Bias

Copp is a Court Judge in the RCAB’s Metropolitan Tribunal where Foster is the Presiding Judge. Copp also sits on the Canonical Affairs Committee which is chaired by Foster. There is no evidence the RCAB took into account when assessing Copp’s credibility, his bias and obvious conflict of interest.

D. Cassem

Cassem provided an affidavit to the RCAB repeatedly characterizing Edwards as untruthful. (R. 19) The RCAB knew Cassem’s affidavit was based on second and third hand information provided to him by Foster’s lawyers. For example, in the Summary of Connor’s September 25th telephone conversation with Cassem, the RCAB knew that Cassem’s “medical reviews” (the term used by Connor) were not based on Cassem’s having reviewed any of Edwards’ medical records. (R.31)

It was also known by the RCAB that Cassem and Foster worked together and were close colleagues. In an email to Rizzuto from Cassem on September 14, Cassem stated: “I have been in frequent contact with the head of the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Msgr. Foster, since he was yanked and put on leave after Paul Edwards accused him of molestation. I have done a good deal of work for the Tribunal over the years, and as soon as he was first put on leave, Msgr. Foster called me.” (R.27)

There is no evidence the RCAB, in assessing Cassem’s credibility, considered the unreliable basis for his affidavit or his relationship with Foster and the obvious conflict of interest.

E. RCAB’s Communications With the Parties

The RCAB informed Foster’s RCAB Advocate in writing that: “Evidence in this case is being kept in the Chancery” and that Foster “could review appropriate material.” (R.) There is no evidence the RCAB extended the same opportunities to Edwards during either the first or second investigation.

The RCAB through Connor directly asked for and received from Foster: “proofs so that I may include them in this investigation. . .” (R.11) There is no evidence to show that the RCAB made a similar direct request of Edwards for any information or documents that could have assisted the RCAB in an objective investigation of the case.

In addition, the RCAB had numerous contacts with Foster, his lawyers and supporters after it began its investigation. (R.11) Foster was personally interviewed by the RCAB, and letters, phone calls and emails were exchanged. (R.10)

According to RCAB files, Cardinal Law personally and immediately informed Foster of the decision to close the first investigation. (R. 27) There is no evidence the RCAB engaged in a similar proactive dialogue with or on behalf of Edwards at any time during either investigation.

2. Did the RCAB Protect Edwards’ Reputation?

A. The RCAB’s Conduct

As noted above, within days of the filing of Edwards’ complaint, Foster acquired legal and public relations representation. Thereafter, information harmful to Edwards’ character, reputation and credibility was reported in the media.

In an email sent on September 14, 2002 by Connor to Amy Strickland, Foster’s “canonical advocate,” Connor stated: “Please note and inform. . . Monsignor Foster, that I and Bishop Edyvean are very concerned that statements from our canonical investigation are being given to the media and possible witnesses in this case. . . Walter Robinson, from the Globe, reports that you and Monsignor Foster were issuing quotes on my behalf, which were obviously not true.” (R.26)

Connor’s email to Strickland further stated: “I want to make sure that we are clear. If Monsignor Foster or his canonical, or civil counsel, or public relations persons or any other persons acting as his agent issue statements which influence, lead or cause persons involved with this case from cooperating with this investigation or interfere with the investigation, the Archdiocese of Boston will need to take whatever steps are prudent and appropriate to respond canonically to such interference.”

While the threat of a canonical response was made privately, there is no evidence the RCAB followed through on that threat or took any steps to respond or otherwise protect Edwards’ reputation, even after information continued to be leaked to the media.

1. Role of the Media

The media regularly and repeatedly published news stories harmful to Edward’s character, reputation and credibility. In August, within days of the initiation of the first investigation, the Boston Globe published the following two articles:

8/22/02 – “Allegations against two priests draws scrutiny” (R.37) 8/23/02 – “More doubts surface about abuse allegations” (R.38)

These stories reported that Edwards falsely claimed:

• to have been in Foster’s bedroom

• to be a paraplegic

• to have led others to believe he was deaf

• to have been a police officer

• to have been abused by Cummings

These stories caused serious harm to Edwards’ reputation during the first investigation. During this time period, Foster's lawyers contacted Parker (Edwards’ lawyer) and shared with him the details of their investigation into Edwards’ credibility. Parker was obviously influenced by the Globe’s coverage and by the information conveyed to him by Foster’s lawyers (R.16) as he immediately urged Edwards, who was distraught and hospitalized at the time, to sign a Mutual Release to end his civil complaint. He also withdrew as Edwards’ legal counsel.

Edwards signed the Mutual Release but later explained that he did it out of concern for the ongoing negative personal effect that the RCAB’s “immediate defense” to his allegations were having on his wife and him. (R23)

Foster responded to the Mutual Release by issuing a public statement in which he portrayed the dismissal of Edwards’ civil complaint as proof that “the suit was baseless and the allegations were false.” (R.13)

While Connor correctly stated to Beal, Foster’s RCAB Advocate, in a September 23, 2002 letter: “The dismissal of the civil suit did not address whether the misconduct in fact occurred, nor did it refer to the canonical investigation,” neither Connor nor any other RCAB official made that distinction public. (R.29)

9/4/02 – “A False Allegation” (Globe Editorial) (R.39)

In this editorial, the Globe stated that Edwards “had a history of embellishments and his accusations were “spurious” and “baseless.” It also stated that Cummings’ memory had been ”besmirched” by Edwards’ allegations against him and suggested that if the allegation was baseless, “. . . Edwards has a moral obligation to retract it.” Finally, the editorial stated that: “Not all cases are quite so clear-cut as Foster’s . . .”

A letter to Connor from Foster on the same day the editorial was published, indicated that Foster was critical of Connor for having told him in their “initial meeting” that “there was a ‘reasonable probability’ the allegations were true.” (R.15) The RCAB’s belief in this “reasonable probability” was not made public and there is no evidence this belief was conveyed to the Boston Globe.

11/1/2002 - “Reinstated monsignor questions policies” (R.40)

In this article published the day after Foster was reinstated a second time, the Boston Globe effectively established that harm was done to Edwards’ reputation by acknowledging its own role not only in publishing negative information about Edwards but in causing Edwards to be discredited in both the civil lawsuit and the Church investigation. The article stated: “When the Globe reported that Edwards had a history of fabricating stories, and that friends had offered statements contradicting part of his allegations, Edwards withdrew his lawsuit and Foster was reinstated.”

12/13/02 – “Accuser wrongly maligned: Church ignored facts in probe of Foster case” (R.41)

This Boston Herald article documented and rebuffed Edwards’ alleged false statements, including those related to whether Edwards could have been in Foster's bedroom, whether he worked as a police officer on the Vineyard, and whether he suffered from a debilitating spinal disease.

On December 13, 2002, the Herald reported that the primary source of the information against Edwards had come from Linda Amicangioli who organized Foster’s supporters and provided the media with information. She told the Herald she had only “third hand” stories about Edwards’ alleged embellishments – a blatant contradiction to her statement in Foster’s file that she knew “first hand” Edwards was lying. (R.41)

Even in the face of this compelling information, the RCAB was again silent in the wake of the Herald’s report and took no steps to repair the harm done to Edwards’ reputation.

12/28/02 - “Foster’s accuser asks archdiocese to reopen case” (R.42)

In this Globe article, Edwards and his new attorney, Carmen Durso, publicly urged the RCAB to reopen the Foster investigation in light of the Herald’s revelations. The Globe gave few details about the facts as the Herald had reported them. Instead the Globe reported that Foster had been reinstated again “. . . after church investigators reviewed evidence that contradicted Edwards.” Neither the Globe nor the RCAB has ever provided information about the source or nature of this “evidence that contradicted Edwards.”

B. Cassem’s Conduct

Connor’s notes of September 25, 2002 refer to a telephone conversation with Cassem wherein Cassem revealed that his opinions about Edwards were based on second and third hand reports, conversations with Ellen Martin (co-counsel for Foster), and Foster himself. Cassem stated that Martin had communicated suggestions to him for his affidavit and that he believed he received the affidavit after it had been prepared by Foster’s lawyers which he then signed. (R.31)

Cassem also shared his “opinions” about Edwards with others. In a September 14, 2002 email Cassem sent to Rizzuto, appointee to the Cardinal’s Commission for the Protection of Children, Cassem stated that Edwards: “is a pathological liar who made his complaint from a wheelchair but it was learned that he has been proved to have fully competent legs. . .” He further stated that that newspaper articles reported Edwards to be “a felon,” though Edwards was never referred to as “a felon” in any article. Cassem added that Edwards was “a danger” and that even Cardinal Law “could well be” at risk. (R.27)

Cassem’s damaging opinions about Edwards were also shared with other Church officials including members of the Cardinal’s Commission, a body which had no authority to be involved in clergy sexual abuse investigations.¹¹ In his September 14^th email to Rizzuto, Cassem prefaced his comments about Edwards with the statement: “I wanted you to know what I just sent to the members of the Commission.” (R. 27)

Even if Cassem believed his opinions to be true, he should not have shared information with others. As an agent of the RCAB, he was obliged to protect Edwards’ reputation. There is no evidence the RCAB took any steps to prevent and/or respond to Cassem’s conduct in an effort to protect Edwards’ reputation.

3. Did the RCAB Provide Edwards Appropriate and Timely Information Regarding Relevant Actions Taken?

The May 2003 Policies provided that the Archdiocese ensure that complainants receive appropriate and timely information pertaining to any relevant actions taken by the Archdiocese. (R.8)

In addition to the May 2003 Policies, a Church canon law expert speaking on behalf of the RCAB stated in a September 17, 2003 Boston Globe article: “When we are adjudicating a criminal action against a priest under canon law, we do communicate to them (the alleged victims) appropriate and timely information.” (R.44)

¹¹ Cassem was a member of the Cardinal’s Commission at the time of the Foster investigation.

As previously noted, there is little evidence the RCAB provided Edwards with appropriate and timely relevant actions throughout the investigation. (See section IV. 1, D) Indeed the most profound example of this is that according to Edwards’ former counsel, Edwards learned of the RCAB’s decision to close the Foster investigation while watching a television newscast. Indeed, the most profound example of this is that, according to Edwards' former lawyer Carme Durso, Edwards learned fo the RCAB's decision to close the Foster investigations while watching a television newscast.

4. Did the Archbishop Issue a Written Decree on Findings?

Essential Norms §13 provides that when the Archbishop determines that evidence gathered during an investigation indicates that a complaint is false, or when evidence is not sufficient to establish the probability of abuse, he will issue a written decree giving reasons for the finding. (R.7)

The Foster investigation was closed without explanation. The announcement of the closure was made in the RCAB’s October 31^st Statement, which promised that“. . .the details will be made public.” To date no such details have been provided to the public or Edwards. (R.22)

Additionally, The Pilot, a national Catholic newspaper, reported on October 3, 2003 that the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors sent a request to Archbishop O’Malley several weeks earlier, asking that evidence supporting the RCAB’s determinations in the Foster and Cummings cases be shared. The Pilot reported that Archbishop O’Malley wrote to the Coalition that he had “recently ordered a full review of the case and of the findings of the Archdiocesan Review Board.” (R.45)

In the Pilot article, RCAB Spokesman Coyne clarified: “Archbishop O’Malley ordered a review of the file, which means basically to reread the file to make sure that we followed all the proper procedures and protocols.” According to the article, Coyne now indicated that “the reexamination of the files is specifically in reference to the allegations regarding Father Cummings” not Foster. No information has been provided to the public or Edwards about the findings of this “full review.”

5. Did the RCAB Provide Edwards Access to Investigation Information?

The May 2003 Policies (R.8) provided that every complainant and his/her lawful representative be granted access to any information generated in connection with an investigation of alleged child abuse.

The May 2003 Policies further provided that the complainant receive due notice of investigations and proceedings and be given an opportunity to examine written records used in making decisions.

In early June, Edwards and his advocates made several verbal inquiries to the RCAB regarding records available to him as a complainant under the May 2003 Policies. In a letter dated June 25, 2003, Edwards formally requested from the RCAB a complete copy of records related to the investigation of his allegations. (R.35)

The next day, June 26^th, Rev. Lennon issued a decree to “replace all previous policies and guidelines.” (R.36) These revised policies:

¾ removed the right of complainants to gain access to information generated in connection with an investigation; and

¾ removed the right of complainants to examine written records of proceedings and decisions. (The right of the accused to these records was maintained.)

Edwards has never received the documents he requested, nor has he been provided with access to information or been allowed to examine materials related to the RCAB’s decision in the Foster investigation.

6. Did the RCAB Collaborate with Designated Church Bodies in the Review and Revision of the May 2003 Policies?

The May 2003 Policies required collaboration among various designated RCAB bodies prior to the enactment of substantive changes to the May 2003 Policies:

The Implementation and Oversight Advisory Committee will assist the

Secretary of the Office for Child Advocacy, Implementation and Oversight

in his/her responsibilities, including: collaborating with the Review Board

to review and revise these Policies and Procedures.

In his Introductory Letter to the May 2003 Policies (R.8), Rev. Lennon emphasized the value of collaboration:

The Policies and Procedures which I am promulgating today are the result of a

lengthy process of consultation. This consultation has included members of the

faithful, persons who have been harmed by sexual abuse and their families,

persons trained in Church teaching and law, experts in the treatment of persons

who have suffered sexual abuse and, notably, the members of the Commission for

the Protection of Children. I am most grateful for the contributions of all who

have participated in this collaboration process. (pp. vii, ix)

Rev. Lennon concluded:

It is my intention that there be ongoing consultation and dialogue among us as

we go forward to ensure that the Policies and Procedures for the Protection of

Children are our very best response to addressing this grave matter.

Within weeks of this statement, however, substantive changes were made to the May 2003 Policies by RCAB officials without any collaboration with designated Church bodies. Neither the Secretary of the Office for Child Advocacy, Oversight and Implementation; nor the Implementation and Oversight Advisory Committee; or the Review Board were ever consulted about the changes by the RCAB.

In a September 17, 2003 Boston Globe article, RCAB spokesperson and canon law expert Rev. Robert Oliver revealed that he oversaw the changes and that “there was no need to seek outside input on the changes because the church didn’t view them as more than technical revisions.” ¹²(R. 44)

In the same article, however, Mary Jane Doherty, a member of the Implementation and Oversight Committee charged with monitoring implementation of the May 2003 Policies, stated she was told by the RCAB that only editing and “streamlining” changes, not substantive ones, would be made. Maureen Bateman, chair of the former Cardinal’s Commission which had recommended full victim access to the RCAB’s investigative files, was quoted as saying: “Why would they change it (the policy) without telling anyone?”

In another Boston Globe article on the same issue dated September 22, 2003, the Church failed to acknowledge it had violated its own policy by having made the changes without collaboration. However, according to RCAB Spokesman Coyne, Archbishop O’Malley said he would make sure that any future changes in the policy, no matter how small, would be reviewed by both the Implementation and Oversight Committee and the Review Board. (R.46)

There is no evidence the RCAB ever addressed the fact that substantive changes were made to the May 2003 Policies without necessary collaboration, in direct violation of those policies. Likewise, the RCAB has never addressed the impact of those changes and how they came about on the ability of the RCAB to oversee the integrity of its investigations.

V. FINDINGS

In light of the foregoing, this Committee finds that the RCAB:

1. Failed to initiate an investigation that was “conducted objectively,” in that it:

¾ Did not interview all relevant witnesses in the investigation. Only three witnesses were interviewed in total even though statements from numerous other individuals were accepted by the RCAB as evidence in the investigation.

It is worth noting that Oliver is a Judge of the Metropolitan Tribunal and in that capacity serves under Foster, the Judicial Vicar.

¾ Did not gather and consider relevant evidence in the investigation. Due weight was not given to Edwards’ knowledge of intimate details regarding Foster’s private residence and other personal information.

¾ Did not “carefully interview” Edwards before it closed the first investigation.

¾ Did not obtain and/or properly weigh Foster’s letter of recommendation on behalf of Edwards lauding Edwards’ character and reputation.

¾ Did not objectively assess Edwards’ credibility with regard to information about Father Cumming on two key points: that the RCAB knew of an earlier complaint against Cummings filed by a different victim; and that Copp recalled Edwards had reported the Cummings rape to him years earlier.

¾ Did not interview or otherwise assess the credibility of individuals who provided the RCAB with specific statements and opinions about Edwards’ character, reputation and truthfulness, in order to determine their credibility, bias, motivation to lie and/or relationship to persons involved in the investigation.

¾ Did not otherwise investigate on its own the truthfulness of various collateral claims made about Edwards’ character, reputation and credibility.

¾ Did not objectively assess Copp’s opinion of Edwards’ truthfulness in light of Copp’s pre-interview contacts with Foster and his lawyers.

¾ Did not objectively consider the self-serving nature of Copp’s statements given his failure to report the Cummings rape to civil or Church authorities.

¾ Did not objectively consider the conflict of interest inherent in Copp’s position on two Church bodies headed by Foster and the impact of that conflict on the weight accorded to his statements during the investigation;

¾ Did not objectively consider the conflict of interest inherent in Cassem’s relationship with Foster and the impact of that conflict on the weight accorded to Cassem’s statements during the investigation;

¾ Did not objectively communicate with Edwards throughout the investigation, particularly in light of the proactive dialogue between the RCAB and Foster or his agents.

2. Failed to “protect” Edwards’ “reputation” and to take “due care” that his reputation was “not endangered” during the investigation, in that it:

Did not respond to numerous news stories that publicized negative information about Edwards that the RCAB knew were not true or had reason to doubt. 

Did not take appropriate steps to prevent Cassem from disseminating harmful information about Edwards to individuals not involved in the investigation. .

1. Failed to “ensure” that Edwards “receive appropriate and timely information pertaining to relevant actions taken.”
2. Failed to “issue a written decree” on findings.
3. Failed to provide Edwards “access to information” generated in connection with the investigation.
4. Failed to collaborate with necessary Church bodies before revising the May 2003 Policies.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

To the RCAB:

In consideration of the findings if this report, the Victims’ Rights Committee respectfully proposes the following recommendations to Archbishop Sean O’Malley:

1. Reopen the Foster matter and conduct an objective and careful investigation.
2. At the conclusion of the new investigation, issue to Paul Edwards and to the general public a written decree on findings.
3. Take immediate steps to restore the reputation of Paul Edwards through both public and private actions.
4. Restore the original language of the May 2003 Policies to provide complainants with a right of access to information generated in connection with an investigation and an opportunity to examine written records used in making decisions.

To the Attorney General:

On July 23, 2003, Attorney General Tom Reilly published a report criticizing the lack of independence in the RCAB’s internal review procedures involving clergy sexual abuse. The report concluded: “The Archdiocese must undergo regular independent audits to assure institutional compliance with each and every provision of the policies and procedures.” This recommendation was based on the Attorney General's findings that the RCAB had a long history of failing adequately to investigate and redress allegations of clergy sexual abuse.

The findings of this Committee reinforce those of the Attorney General and exemplify the need for external oversight as this review contains numerous examples of the RCAB’s inability or unwillingness to abide by its own policies and procedures.

That this Committee’s report pertains to a recent RCAB investigation, conducted at a time when the RCAB was under strict public scrutiny, underscores the urgent need for external oversight. If the RCAB was unable or unwilling to conduct a proper investigation of the high profile Foster matter, the public can have little confidence that the RCAB will conduct itself appropriately in the future when public attention subsides.

That the RCAB has persisted in resisting external oversight is further evidence of the need for such outside review. The RCAB not only declined to provide information to this Committee during this review process, it publicly declared no need for oversight in an October 9, 2003 Boston Globe article where RCAB Spokesman Coyne stated:

. . .we are capable of following up on our policies and procedures and. . .we

are doing everything that we can to make sure that people who make a claim

against the archdiocese or a priest are given the justice they deserve .(R.47)

A similar public claim was made with regard to the integrity of the Foster investigation in the RCAB’s October 31st Statement:

The investigation was conducted in order to ascertain the facts, circumstances,

and the imputability of the allegation. Throughout the investigation, efforts were

made to ensure that the canonical and civil rights of the person bringing forth the

complaint and those of Monsignor Foster were respected.

Care has been taken to investigate appropriately this allegation following the norms of Canon Law and the policy of the Archdiocese. During this time care has also been taken so that the good name of each person involved in this process not be endangered by this investigation. (R.22)

In light of the findings in this report, the RCAB’s public claim that it conducted an “appropriate” investigation and that “care” was taken to “protect the good name” of Paul Edwards strains credulity and raises grave doubts as to whether there can be any public confidence in the RCAB's professed ability to ensure that “the people who make a claim against the archdiocese or a priest” will be given “the justice they deserve.”

The findings in this report amply demonstrate that the RCAB fell woefully shy of compliance with its own policies and procedures, those of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and relevant provisions of Canon Law.

For the foregoing reasons, the Victims’ Rights Committee strongly recommends that the Attorney General take immediate steps to provide external oversight of the RCAB's internal handling of clergy sexual abuse allegations.

* * *

Paul Edwards, like all persons who report clergy sexual abuse, was entitled to have his complaint addressed fairly and objectively. Paul Edwards was also entitled to participate in an RCAB investigation without the process itself causing him or his reputation undue harm.

The Victims’ Rights Committee intends by this report to shed light on both the failures of the RCAB to abide by its own policies and procedures and on the harm done to Paul Edwards as a result. This Committee also hopes that this report will motivate the public to insist on new and effective means of ensuring outside accountability for internal Church investigations of sexual abuse allegations.

Church officials have publicly expressed a commitment to the protection of children and to ensuring that victims who report sexual abuse will receive justice from the Church. This report provides compelling evidence that such a commitment is dependent upon external oversight.

Without such accountability there can be no justice. Without justice, children will not be protected.

APPENDIX A. Records Utilized by the Victims’ Rights Committee in this Review

Investigation Records

R. 1 Letter from Paul Edwards to the VRC – October 15, 2003

R. 2 Letter to Archbishop Sean O’Malley from the Victim Rights Committee - January 22, 2004

R. 3 Letter to Victims’ Rights Committee from Rev. John Connolly, Jr., Secretary to the Archbishop – February 6, 2004

R. 4 Pastoral Policy for Handling Allegations of Sexual Misconduct with Minors by Clergy of the Archdiocese, adopted by the RCAB, 1993

R. 5Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People adopted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), June 2002

R. 6Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, USCCB, 2002

R. 7 1983 Code of Canon Law

R. 8 Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, decreed by the RCAB on May 30, 2003

R. 9 Suffolk County Superior Court Plaintiff Complaint and Jury Demand – Paul Edwards, Plaintiff v. RCAB and Rev. Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, Defendants – August 14, 2003

R. 10 Notes of Interview of Msgr. Foster by RCAB representatives – August 18, 2002

R. 11 Letter to Msgr. Foster from Rev. Sean Connor, RCAB Delegate for Investigations

-August 24, 2002

R. 12Mutual Release between Paul Edwards and Msgr. Michael Smith Foster – September 3, 2002

R. 13 Email to “canonlaw” list serve from Amy Strickland, canonical advocate to Msgr. Foster, posting a statement from Foster – September 3, 2002

R. 14 Letter to Rev. Connor from Msgr. Foster – September 3, 2002

R. 15 Letter to Rev. Connor from Msgr. Foster – September 4, 2002

R. 16 Affidavit of Joseph Doherty, Jr. Counsel for Msgr. Foster – September 4, 2002

R. 17 Statement from former Sacred Heart Youth Group members – undated

R. 18 Letter to Cardinal Law from Bruce Cushna, Foster supporter - September 9, 2002

R. 19 Affidavit of Ned Cassem, SJ, MD, RCAB evaluator in the case - August 29, 2002

R. 20 Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law – October 11, 2002 – January 22, 2003

R. 21 Report of Paul Edwards Polygraph Examination conducted on September 5, 2002

R. 22 Statement of Donna Morrissey, Spokeswoman, Archdiocese of Boston on the Reinstatement of Msgr. Foster – October 31, 2002

R. 23 Transcript of Meeting between Paul Edwards, Rev. Connor and Re. Mark O’Connell, Canonical Notary – September 12, 2002

R. 24 Notes of Meeting of RCAB officials at Cardinal’s Residence to discuss the Foster case – September 13, 2002

R. 25 Decree of Preliminary Investigation of Msgr. Foster issued by Rev. Walter Edyvean – September 13, 2002

R. 26 Email to Amy Strickland, Msg. Foster’s canonical advocate, from Rev. Connor -September 14, 2002

R. 27 Email to Deacon Anthony Rizzuto from Father Cassem – September 14, 2002

R. 28 Notes of Meeting between Rev. Rodney Copp and Rev. Connor recorded by Rev. Arthur Coyle – September 19, 2002

R. 29 Letter to Rev. John Beal, RCAB Advocate of Msgr. Foster from Rev. Connor – September 23, 2002

R. 30 Note to Father Ned Cassem, SJ, MD from Rev. Connor asking him to review a summary of their September 25, 2002 telephone conversation - October 7, 2002

R. 31 Memorandum to Msgr. Foster from Rev. Connor regarding telephone interview with Father Cassem – October 9, 2002

R. 32 Note to Rev. Connor from Father Cassem re: Cassem’s Affidavit about Paul Edwards – October 17, 2002

R. 33 Middlesex Superior Court Civil Action: John Doe No. 9, Plaintiff v. RCAB, James Moe No. 1, and Father Williams Cummings, Defendants – June 14, 2002

R. 34 Letter of Recommendation from Rev. Foster about Paul Edwards written after Foster had known Edwards “for over five years.”

R. 35 Letter to the RCAB from Paul Edwards requesting his files as per the May 2003 Policies – June 25, 2003

R. 36 Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Children, (Revised) decreed by the RCAB on May 30, 2003

Media Records

R. 37 “Allegations against 2 priests draw scrutiny” Boston Globe, August 22, 2002

R. 38 “ More doubts surface about abuse allegations” Boston Globe, August 23, 2002

R. 39 “A false accusation” Boston Globe Editorial September 4, 2002

R. 40 “Reinstated monsignor questions policies” Boston Globe, November 1, 2002

R. 41 “Abuser wrongly maligned; Church ignored facts in probe of Foster case” Boston Herald, December 13, 2002

R. 42 “Foster’s accuser asks archdiocese to reopen case” Boston Globe, December 28, 2002

R. 43 “Archdiocese knew of 2^nd lawsuit when it rejected claim” Boston Globe, January 15, 2003

R. 44 “Diocese limits access to abuse records” Boston Globe, September 17, 2003

R. 45 “Allegations against top canon lawyer will not be reinvestigated” The Pilot, October 3, 2003

R. 46 “Openness vowed on clergy abuse policy” Boston Globe, September 22, 2003

R. 47 “Group offers to review abuse cases” Boston Globe, October 9, 2003

R. 48 “Victim hopes for peace in sex abuse arbitration” Boston Herald, December 2, 2003

APPENDIX B.