Chapter 9 — Tralee

Physical abuse

Another former resident stated he was in bed sick when Robert Moore was being helped up the stairs into bed. He was ‘whimpering feverishly’ and the boy helping him told this witness that Br Lafayette was ‘after killing him’. He dozed off and, when he woke up, Robert Moore’s bed was empty. He died some days later in hospital.

At this remove, it is not possible to state whether the beating Robert Moore received at the hands of Br Lafayette had anything to do with his death. What this story tells us about the general atmosphere in Tralee is significant. It is accepted that the Brother in charge of the refectory struck Robert Moore because he was not eating or because he was not eating quickly enough. It seems particularly cruel that the children could not even eat their meals without violence or the threat of violence. It is clear from the evidence of individual Brothers that Br Lafayette’s harshness to the boys was known about in Tralee but nothing was done to stop it. This incident in the refectory fits into a pattern of behaviour in the institution whereby violence was used to enforce discipline on the boys. The fact that this boy died after being hit was sufficient reason to warrant a full inquiry, no matter what the cause of death on the death certificate. Only an immediate independent inquiry could have sorted out the issues arising out of this case. If the boy was already seriously ill, the inquiry could have investigated why he did not receive care earlier. If the beating contributed to his death, it could have established why that information did not come to be generally known and investigated as a possible causative factor. This case has become controversial and subject to speculation because the circumstances of the boys death were never properly investigated.

Complainants used the word ‘flogging’ to describe particularly severe punishment in Tralee.

A complainant accused one Brother, Br Boyce, of flogging him. He got a flogging from this Brother and half an hour later got one from another Brother, Br Cheney. He did not know why. Br Boyce hit him with a ‘leather’. ‘These leathers weren’t just light pieces of string, they were severe actually’. The complainant stated that the attack was a painful moment for him as Br Boyce was ‘a very nice lad actually and I was surprised to be attacked like that’. It was uncharacteristic of the Brother. Br Boyce, who gave evidence to the Committee, denied flogging the boy.

Another witness said that Br Bevis: flogged a young boy ... [The boy] was a classmate of mine and he actually done something wrong with the bandmaster, I don’t know, and he was reported to Br Bevis who flogged him. That’s all I know. He put the boy’s head in between his legs and he flogged him ferociously, beat him very badly. This boy actually eventually ended up in the mental hospital in Killarney.

Br Bevis denied beating this boy.

Another witness also recalled an occasion when about 12 boys were ‘picked up’ for masturbating in the dormitory and lined up and bent over the beds with their nightshirts up. Br Bevis and another Brother took turns in giving the boys ‘the hop’, i.e. pulling up the nightshirt and hitting them straight across the bare bottom, six to a dozen times. The witness stated that this happened quite a lot and the boys were all ‘frightened to death’.

Another former resident claimed that Br Cheney would ask him to stay back after class and to drop his pants. Br Cheney would then ‘leather’ his bottom. This happened ‘many times’ until he was 16. The complainant thought Br Cheney did it because of ‘madness’. This also happened to other boys in the class. He said that he also had to receive hospital treatment after Br Cheney hit him. He thought he hit some part of his brain. This same complainant said that Br Cheney gave him the second of two floggings half an hour apart from each other and that he ‘feared’ this man.

One witness made allegations of physical abuse against a Br Roland. He said that the boys were playing in the schoolroom one day, and one boy got hit in the eye. Br Roland asked who did it but no one answered. The Brother then pointed to him. Later that day, Br Roland took him into an empty classroom and asked him if he was the culprit. He said no. The Brother got a strap out of a glass cupboard containing different straps and told him to get on his knees and put his hands out. He continued to deny his involvement in the incident but Br Roland said he was telling lies. He said he received 44 strokes on each hand, the second 44 so that he would not lie again. He remembers waking in the dormitory some days later with bandaged hands. They were very painful.

Br Bevis in his evidence said he was aware of one occasion when Br Cheney and Br Chaunce punished a boy in a dormitory when he was caught abusing a younger boy. He acknowledged that he had heard that it was a particularly severe punishment.

Witnesses gave evidence that punishment was unpredictable and unavoidable. Punishment was a feature both inside and outside the classroom. Even Brothers with whom they had a reasonably good relationship could suddenly turn and lash out with the leather or their fists.

One former resident recalled an incident where a boy in the farmyard had an argument with Br Toussnint who then picked up a pitchfork and threw it at the boy, pinning his jacket to the cowshed door. The boy ran up to the yard and the boys hid him when the Brother came looking for him. This was a Brother who was not regarded as severe in his dealings with the boys as a rule.

Brothers against whom there were few complaints could flare up and lose their tempers, and in such situations were not restrained. The culture of the school allowed them to lash out against boys.

One complainant gave evidence about Br Archard who taught boys in second class who would, if the boys did not know an answer, ‘give you the knuckles on the head. It was very, very sore’. He did not know if other people got the same treatment, although he did not regard it as out of the ordinary: ‘corporal punishment was there anyway so they were only doing what was being done’.

One witness said Br Bevis physically assaulted him in the classroom, schoolyard and recreation hall. He was slapped with the strap that Br Bevis carried, not just on the hands. He does not know which classroom this was in, but it could have been any as he did chores for the Brothers. Br Bevis did not teach him. Br Bevis acknowledged that he may have slapped this boy, but denied beating any boy over the body or head or breaking bones. He only punished boys on the hands or maybe gave a clip on the bottom, on the trousers.