|
Excerpts from letter to Bishop's accuser Here are relevant portions of the May 19 letter from Mary Jo White to John Aretakis concerning her investigation of allegations he and his clients have made against Bishop Howard J. Hubbard (see article beginning on page 1 and concluding below): "Dear Mr. Aretakis: "This letter seeks to remove any remaining barriers to obtaining your clients' cooperation in our investigation. "Although it is somewhat difficult to tell from the press accounts what your current conditions for cooperation are, it appears that you require an advance copy of our engagement letter [with the Diocesan Review Board], and a public meeting with me so that you and the press can ask questions about the investigation. Although you have had an opportunity to review the engagement letter since March 26, and have declined that offer, I now attach it. I am also attaching a transcript of the February 19, 2004 press conference at which I responded to many of the questions you continue to raise. I would be happy to respond to any questions you have, and can be reached at my office. We will also respond to any media inquiries pertaining to the engagement letter. It would, however, be premature and not appropriate to publicly discuss the investigation before it is concluded and our report is issued.... "We also request that you provide...the originals of the two notes previously released to the public so that we can have an independent expert evaluate their authenticity -- standard procedure in any case where allegations rest on documentary evidence. It was reported in The New York Times on February 6, 2004, that you stated that an expert had matched the typed letter to a typewriter....We reiterate our request that you provide the name of that expert and any report he or she may have prepared.... "It is unclear from press reports whether or not you are demanding that your clients be interviewed in public. We think such a procedure is not the most professional or optimal way of proceeding, given the highly sensitive and personal nature of the allegations being investigated, as well as the likelihood that people not present will be discussed. However, if this is the only way that we can meet with your clients who have made public allegations about Bishop Hubbard, we will reluctantly agree to this condition. "Finally, we want to correct two subtle, but important, errors that have been attributed to you in the media about attorney-client privilege issues in our investigation. First, we do not have an attorney-client relationship with Bishop Hubbard. Bishop Hubbard is not our client. The Sexual Misconduct Review Board, which is our client, hired us to conduct an independent investigation and to issue a public report on its findings, whatever they may be. That is our only duty to our client. The Review Board has lived up to its end of the bargain by cooperating with every request we have made for information, and by not interfering in any way with the investigation.... "Second, we have not requested that you compromise in any way your legal representation of your clients or any privileges they may have. We have requested to interview your clients about allegations they chose to make public and discuss with the media. Although we would very much like them to speak with us, they are free to meet with us, or not, as you advise them. "We have made every effort to make it possible for your clients who have raised these allegations to cooperate in the investigation...." (5/27/04) |