2,143 entries for Witness Testimony

One witness, Elaine,1 who was there in the 1940s and 1950s, confirmed that the local people befriended them. She said: The local people were quite good, they would send in treats like boxes of sweets, my job would be to answer the letters thanking them.

The location of the School had many disadvantages too. The site was restricted, and offered little space for development. As Sr McQuaid explained: They had a small yard at the back with a shelter for the children with a roof and three sides and a hot pipe that ran through it and connected to the laundry ... On wet days, they were in the School.

At the earlier public hearing, she described the atmosphere of the School in more detail: It was a cold building. Even when the heating was put in in ’51 it was still cold and they supplemented it in the 70s and they still had to put in heaters. It has long narrow corridors and it is more long than it is broad. It has a basement and three floors and an attic so it was a very formidable building for little children who were already traumatised to suddenly arrive in.

She summed up her frustration with the regime as follows: if these people are going to run a school they must look after these children – otherwise I will have to recommend that they are not fit to look after children and have them transferred elsewhere.

Following Dr McCabe’s departure from her post in 1965, Dr Lysaght carried out a full inspection on 24th March 1966. In his lengthy report he remarked that: There is a kindly & intimate atmosphere in this comparatively small school which makes up for its old fashioned & rough furniture and equipment. The fact that the numbers are low and the buildings not fully occupied tend to make it feel bland by comparison with more compact building or one in which all the rooms are occupied. Much could be done to bring it up to date by way of say modern beds.

The next inspection, by Dr Lysaght, did not take place until November 1971. The state of affairs existing in the School at that time are outlined with some acerbity as follows: Two elderly nuns are mainly responsible for the running of this school, both spent practically all their religious life in this one school on this same work ... It seems as if the school staggered on for years with little interest or encouragement from the Department. It was left to the Sisters themselves to make a break-through when, in 1967, they embarked on major works of alterations and improvements. I understand that was primarily sparked off by the election, in 1966, of a new Reverend Mother, who has given this work her whole-hearted interest, sympathy and practical support. Until her arrival, (two sisters) admitted to me that they felt this school was virtually a barracks!

Contrasting views were expressed by Department Inspectors. Dr Lysaght amended his 1976 report in complimentary remarks: This was a worthwhile and valid visit where one could state objectively that the present Child Care practices are geared towards the interest of the children, there is a healthy happy atmosphere ...

However, when the School was next inspected by Mr Graham Granville in February 1977 he was very critical: the Resident Manager ... has endeavoured to operate a residential children’s home for a very long time now under extremely exacting and formidable conditions within her own community ... is now showing signs of being a sick person and tired. The children are not suffering unduly at present, nevertheless, the future is very uncertain, and I would see a grave risk to the children’s safety if there were to be fire, and combine this lack of enthusiasm towards the children’s social and academic development and one has certain crucial problems, that cannot be over looked.

She described the daily chores that the children were required to do. She explained that every child was given a chore that was her special responsibility: There was two lasses looked after the kitchen ... Other girls would ... look after the convent ... There was one lassie that had the laundry ...We all had chores. Some had the kitchen duties, some was cleaning up the pantries and things like that. Mine was the youngsters, there wouldn’t have been many, not in today’s terms. It seemed an awful lot then and it seemed a big chore. You had to look after them. You combed their hair, you fine combed their hair and make sure there was no nits and things like that. We didn’t have any toothbrushes so we didn’t have to look after our teeth ...

She began this ‘child minding children’ from the age of about 10 or 11. She went on to explain the system: We would have lived on landings. Well there was the first landing, second and third landing. Mine would have been the charges on the third landing, they were the younger people ... They would have been maybe two to seven.

The position of the Congregation was that the first time they became aware of complaints about St Joseph’s was in October 1999, with the publication of Suffer the Little Children by Eoin O’Sullivan and Mary Raftery. In their Opening Statement the Congregation submitted: Allegations of abuse from former residents of St Joseph’s came as a source of deep shock to us, and particularly to the Sisters of the Dundalk Community, a number of whom had worked in the industrial school over the years, and were in regular contact with many former residents.

They went on to say: Former residents differ in their memory of the use of corporal punishment during their time in St Joseph’s. Some have painful memories of it and say they experienced it as excessive, others say it was not. While it is denied that excessive punishment was used in St Joseph’s, given the number of years covered by the period under review, together with the number of children in residence, it is unlikely that corporal punishment was not sometimes administered unfairly or harshly.

The worst part was the fear of the punishment, and the waiting to be punished. She described one nun as ‘very rough ... for an old nun’ and added: She would give you six of the best and you would be lined up for half an hour before you got the six of the best, so the trauma of waiting to be punished and then being punished. They could be punished for little or nothing, for talking after lights out at bedtime: It didn’t have to be anything in particular ... Because ... we were always told we were bold anyway so it didn’t matter.

The witness recalled this lay staff member as being very rough with the children: But she would often get a child and she would pull her by the hair and swing her, only the wall would stop the person. They would go sliding down. She broke every brush we ever had in the house. We didn’t have many ... She would be murdering them, using them as rulers. She just flogged people. When she left the place, and she was only there for a year, there wasn’t a brush in the place when she left.

The children did not complain about this staff member and she completed her placement. The witness explained that there was no one to complain to: I don’t think that any of us had the knowledge or the wherewithal to complain. We were at these people’s mercy.