Notes from Cherin Marie’s May 7, 2021 call with Cherie Scricca, head of the Grand River Solutions investigation.
*Cherin’s questions to GRS are in bold, and her notes on Cherie’s responses are in italics.
How long will you be collecting reports and data for this investigation?
They do not have a hard stop planned on. Cherie says they tend to get a lot more reports right after the initial announcement and then it typically trails off. When participation drops off, that would signal the end of the investigation.
They would then have the diocese send one final reminder before stopping, so any remaining victims could have one last chance to join in.
Are you also conducting an institutional review of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest? If so, how do you intend to get feedback and input if you have not invited congregants to contribute to this? What data are you analyzing in order to undertake this review?
“At the moment, this investigation is focused entirely on Mark.”
Their investigations sometimes lead to recommending an institutional review as well, depending on whether anything in their investigation indicates that there was mishandling of allegations.
They plan to ask participants whether they disclosed anything to the church, and what the church’s response was, but nothing else.
When you conduct interviews, is there only one person or two conducting the interview? Do you record interviews? Do you allow the witness to record interviews?
They only conduct interviews with one interviewer present, who exclusively takes notes. They do not record interviews and do not allow them to be recorded.
I asked if I would be allowed to record my interview, if I chose to participate in the investigation, and Cherie said, “No.”
Is there an option for victims to share a story while maintaining anonymity? Right now the only option that has been made available is to email your firm, which might inherently feel unsafe to some victims.
No, the only option for reaching out is by email. “If someone is uncomfortable about disclosing their identity, they can just use a fake name and we won’t know the difference.”
If new victims come to GRS, what support will they offer to them?
They do not offer any support to victims. They simply refer participants to the church, for whatever support the church is offering.
Are victims’ names kept confidential even from the church? How do you respond if your client desires to know the identity of a particular witness?
They “typically” do not disclose names to the client, but she could not guarantee they will keep names confidential from the diocese.
I explained how a victim who has something to share about the church or its leaders will likely need assurance that their name will not be revealed to the diocese in order to feel safe coming forward.
Cherie seemed unconcerned about this and said that anyone who wanted to remain anonymous could just use a different name, and the diocese would have no way of identifying them.
Will you be intentionally reaching out to victims who have already been identified or do you only speak to those who email you? How will you find other victims? Are there any steps beyond Bp. Stewart’s announcement that will be made to reach known and potential victims?
No, they will not reach out to anyone. Stewart’s letter to the diocese is currently the only means of reaching out to victims.
How are they showing themselves as safe to known victims who may not feel safe speaking up?
They are doing nothing.
How will victims’ stories and testimonies actually be conveyed in the final report? Will you tell victims’ stories and give them a voice? What about any findings of institutional or clergy failures? Will those be specifically outlined and told in the final report?
This is totally up to the diocese. “The client dictates all of what the final report includes and what is left out and how much detail we go into.”
Cherie would not confirm whether there was a plan for what the final report would include, but seemed to suggest that the diocese had not made a decision yet about how transparent to be.
What is your procedure if someone reports a criminal offense to you? What steps do you take to ensure that your interviews or reports do not interfere with potential criminal proceedings?
They “let someone know” if a crime is disclosed to them, but do not take any steps to protect against interfering with criminal proceedings. They assume that anyone who shouldn’t talk to them, because doing so would jeopardize their criminal case, will not reach out. “Most people in that situation will not even reach out to us,” she said.
I explained that someone disclosing abuse for the first time will likely not know that they need to be careful who they talk to about their abuse disclosure. I then asked if they would at least stop someone, as soon as they disclose abuse and direct them to the proper legal channels.
Cherie said, “We do not offer any legal advice,” and confirmed that GRS would keep going with the entire interview, even if someone disclosed child sexual abuse or another crime to them.
GRS absolutely does not have any safeguards in place for this and they do not seem to understand that this is even something they need to be careful about.
Has the diocese waived attorney-client privilege in this case?
“I actually don’t know,” Cherie said.
Will final reports be shared with participating victims?
No, the final report will only be released to the diocese and it is up to the diocese whether they publish or share it.
If anything reported to you escalates to a civil lawsuit, what is your involvement on the diocese’s behalf? Do you assist in mitigating any legal litigation? Do you provide a referral for legal representation? Do you make your data available to the diocese’s legal defense? Do you provide any resources or representation to the diocese if this investigation leads to a civil lawsuit?
They do not defend their clients or participate in legal proceedings. The most they have ever done in the past is testifying as an expert witness in legal proceedings on a client’s behalf.
I asked if they could also be an expert witness for victims who interview with them and she said she didn’t know, because this had never been something they had ever encountered or been asked to do.