Drama: New witness tracks down Anderson as jury deliberates. New testimony shows Fresno Diocese must have withheld evidence

***

“In discovery and at trial, there were no records of complaints or testimony of complaints of sexual abuse made to the Diocese before or during the time period of plaintiffs’ abuse.”

This is too good to wait until Tuesday: “Summary of New Evidence,” page 4 Heading 2 in the 2000 or so page document - Motion for a New Trial in Fresno - I'm reading over the weekend. Following is copied directly from the Brief:

The jury began its deliberations at approximately 11:30 AM on April 2, 2009. After deliberating for less than three hours, the jury had a question. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jeff Anderson, was returning to the courtroom to respond to the question when he received a message from his office that a W Doe had called stating that he had information regarding the Santillan brothers.
Mr. Anderson returned the call, and spoke briefly with Mr. W Doe. (New witness is named in public papers, but asked to remain anonymous in news stories, so we are calling him W Doe.)

After responding to the jury’s question, and returning to his hotel, Mr. Anderson again called Mr. W Doe and Mr. W Doe informed him that he had been molested by Herdegen in the mid- to late- 1960s, and he had complained of the abuse.

According to Mr. W Doe, he started attending St. John’s Catholic School in Wasco in first grade in approximately 1962. When he was approximately 10 years old, he became an altar boy for Herdegen. Herdegen began molesting Mr. W Doe when Mr. W Doe was in the fifth grade, near the end of 1969, and Mr. W Doe told his mother about Herdegen’s conduct after a Saturday Mass.

The following Monday, Mr. W Doe’s mother took him to see the principal and head nun of St. John’s Catholic School Sister Vidaline. W Doe’s mother told him to tell Sister Vidaline about Herdegen’s condiuct and he did so.

On March 18, 2009, Mr W Doe received a call from his son who told him the Santillan brothers were “going to court” over Hergeden. Upon hearing this information, Mr. W Doe found articles on the internet about the trial and that trial counsel was an attorney named Jeff Anderson.

Mr. W Doe located an attorney named Jeff Anderson in Sacramento and called and left a message for him. He also sent Mr. Anderson an email through his website.

When W Doe did not receive any response to his voicemail or email messages, on Thursday April 2, 2009, W Doe called the Sacramento Jeff Anderson again. That Jeff Anderson told Mr W Doe that he did get the message but he was not the right Jeff Anderson. He explained that over the years he’d received calls that were intended for a Jeff Anderson in Minnesota.

W Doe looked up Jeff Anderson’s contact information in the Minnesota State Bar website and called his office in Minnesota. The message from his office was received by Mr. Anderson as he was returning to court to deal with the jury’s question, after the jury had begun deliberation in the case on April 2, 2009.

****************

ONE MORE IMPORTANT POINT

Diocese Apparently Withheld Evidence in Discovery and Bent Truth in Court Testimony

I don't want to wait until Tuesday to report:
From Page 7 (only 1993 to go…

*****************************

Directly copied from Motion for New Trial filed May 11 in Fresno Superior Court:

The Diocese produced no documented prior reports of abuse pertaining to Herdegen, despite being requested in Discovery to do so. In discovery and at trial there were no records of complaints of testimony of complaints of sexual abuse made to the Diocese before or during the time period of plaintiffs’ abuse.

This was the central issue raised by the Defendant at trial.

(The new witness) W Doe’s report to the Diocese about Herdegen’s misconduct supports George Santillan’s contential at trial that the Diocese frequently received reports of molestation that were either never documented or the documentation was “lost.”

Then on Page 6:

Evidence at the trial of this action demonstrated that the Diocese had a history of filing no document - or not retaining the documentation of - reports of sexual misconduct committed by its employees.

(Plaintiffs argued) The absence of documentation did not equate the absence of misconduct or the absence of notice.

*********************

IN FACT:

No evidence of the 1967 W Doe’s report of Anthony Herdegen was found in the files turned over for Discovery

********************************

The Diocese produced no documented prior reports of abuse pertaining to Herdegen, despite being requested in discovery to do so.

In discovery and at trial, there were no records of complaints or testimony of complaints of sexual abuse made to the Diocese before or during the time period of plaintiffs’ abuse.

Mr. W Doe’s testimony however changes all that.

Mr. W Doe’s declaration unequivocally demonstrates that a complaint was made to the Diocesse of Herdegen’s molesting a child by late 1967.

*****************

Stay tuned. . .

**************************

PS: Whoopee, did I get a bunch of PayPal clicks when we came back to City of Angels. If every reader every 3 months sent $5, I could probly travel all the way to Fresno to cover a trial...