Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 16 (October 27), PM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: All right, we continue with Mr. Harvey's cross-examination, or questioning on cross.
DIRECT EXAMINATION AS ON CROSS (cont'd.)
Q. Mr. Buckingham, sometime in the morning session you testified that the board deviated from its normal practice of having a subject covered at a planning meeting before voting at an action meeting, and they did that with respect to the October 18th resolution because the issue was so important. Do you remember giving that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell me if you'll agree with me that the issue was so important because of the importance of having the students hear about an alternative to evolution so they wouldn't accept it as a fact. That was what was so important. Isn't that right?
A. It was important because a lot of work had been done along this process by the entire board, and I felt that the entire board should be present when we vote on it.
Q. But you said it was the issue that was important. Right?
A. Well, the issue is part of the process.
Q. And the issue that you felt was so important was having students presented with an alternative to evolution so they wouldn't accept evolution as a fact. Isn't that correct?
A. I don't believe I said they wouldn't accept it as a fact. I don't believe I said those words. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Q. Well, I'm asking you, the issue that was so important for you was having an alternative presented to evolution. Right?
A. The issue that was so important was the alternative, the scientific theory of intelligent design. It was a big vote, and I wanted the whole board there, if we could do that. And that was the one time we could be reasonably certain we'd all be there.
Q. And it was important because you wanted an alternative presented to evolution. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were concerned that if the students didn't have an alternative presented to evolution, they might accept the correctness of the theory of evolution. Correct?
A. They might accept it as fact along with all its flaws and faults.
Q. Now, also this morning you testified that every time the reporters, in their reporting on the June board meetings, said that the board was talking about creationism, the board was actually discussing about -- discussing intelligent design and the reporters just had it mixed up. Do you remember giving that testimony?
A. I don't know if they had it mixed up or did it on purpose, but that's how it happened.
Q. But at your deposition on March 31st, you said that you didn't know when the subject of intelligent design came up. Isn't that right?
A. I would have to see the deposition.
Q. Well, please turn to your March 31st deposition at Page 44.
A. I'm sorry, 44?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm there.
Q. Question -- this is approximately -- Line 11. Question: I'm just trying to use -- trying to have some markers to help refresh your recollection. During these course of events, when did intelligent design come up? Did it come up in the early June meeting, or you just have no memory whatsoever? Answer: I don't know when it came up. I can't tell you. That was your testimony then. Right?
A. I wasn't sure which meeting we were talking about.
Q. But it's your testimony now that you don't know when the subject of intelligent design came up. Isn't that correct?
A. The subject of intelligent design came up during the curriculum board meetings prior to that.
Q. Are you saying that it came up in June of 2004, at those board meetings?
A. I'm talking about curriculum meetings.
Q. You're not talking about the board meetings?
A. I'm talking about curriculum meetings.
Q. So you're saying that the subject of -- but tell me this, did the subject of intelligent design come up at the board meetings in June of 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. But we just looked at testimony in which you said you don't remember when it came up. Isn't that correct?
A. I wasn't sure of the dates. I was having trouble with dates back then because I had the problem I was dealing with with Oxycontin, and it was close proximity to the time I was at the Caron Foundation. I was still dealing with withdrawal from the prescribed medication I had, and I was having trouble with dates.
Q. That was in 2004 you were having trouble with dates. Right?
A. I was having trouble with dates then and sometimes I still have trouble with dates.
Q. Okay. Now, do you remember there was a board meeting, we talked about it earlier this morning, on June the 7th where you said, in response to something of Barrie Callahan, you said that the biology textbook was laced with Darwinism?
A. Yes, I used that phrase.
Q. And that was the June 7th meeting. Correct? That's what we established this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you're not saying that intelligent design was discussed at that meeting, are you?
A. I can't say for sure that it was or wasn't.
Q. You just don't know?
A. I don't know.
Q. And this morning I asked you whether you were the board member who seconded the motion to approve the newsletter that came out in February, 2005. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you didn't remember. Do you remember that?
A. I didn't remember seconding it, no.
Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as P821. I'll give you a copy of it, and I'll ask Matt to bring it up.
MR. HARVEY: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, I've just handed you what's been marked as P821. It's the minutes of a school board meeting of the Dover Area School District that was held on February 14th. That's correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look at the second item on the first page under Board President's Communication -- do you see that?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Do you see that that says that you were the one who seconded the motion to approve the newsletter?
A. Okay, they're talking about mailing the newsletter. I don't know that I ever approved the newsletter itself.
Q. I see. So you just seconded the motion to mail the newsletter. Right?
A. The newsletter was shown to us. We saw it. And it was to be mailed out, and we voted to do that.
Q. And you seconded that?
A. And I did second that, yes.
Q. Now, before the lunch break we were talking about the Discovery Institute and your communications with the Discovery Institute. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And we talked about a conversation that you had with Seth Cooper. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And we actually talked about you spoke to Mr. Cooper on several occasions, and we focused for a few minutes on the very first conversation that you had with Mr. Cooper. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was after that call with Mr. Cooper that he sent you the videotape and the DVD and maybe a book. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I just want to place the time of that first meeting -- excuse me, telephone call with Mr. Cooper of the Discovery Institute. That was in June of 2004 or earlier. Isn't that true?
A. I believe so.
Q. Because, in fact, you shared the DVD with the science department, and that was discussed in June with the schoolteachers. Correct?
A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I know it was discussed with the teachers, but I'm not sure of the exact time when it was.
Q. Well, you remember that you shared the DVD or the video with the schoolteachers in or before June of 2004. Correct?
A. I gave it to Dr. Nilsen, and he forwarded it on to the science department.
Q. But that was --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in or before June. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the DVD or video that you got from the Discovery Institute. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that means that your conversation with Mr. Cooper must have been in or before June of 2004. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'd like to talk to you about the Thomas More Law Center for just a couple minutes. Unlike the Discovery Institute, which contacted you, you contacted the Thomas More Law Center. Correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you recall when that call was made?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Well, let's see if we can place the time of that. Thomas More Law Center were the people who first told you about the textbook Of Pandas and People. True?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew about the textbook Of Pandas and People in late July of 2005. Isn't that correct?
A. Yeah, that would be true. That's this year.
Q. I just misspoke, I could hear from the whisperings of counsel behind me. I said late July of -- I meant to say late July of 2004.
A. Yes.
Q. So since you knew about the textbook Of Pandas and People in late July of 2004, that means that you must have spoken to the Thomas More Law Center before then. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not sure when I spoke to them.
Q. Well, you told us earlier that you learned about the textbook Pandas from the Thomas More Law Center.
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you clearly knew about the textbook Pandas in late July of 2004. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you must have spoken to the Thomas More Law Center before then. Right?
A. Okay.
Q. And the person you spoke to at the Thomas More Law Center was Richard Thompson?
A. Yes.
Q. And all of your calls were with Mr. Thompson?
A. Yes.
Q. And your purpose in calling Thomas More was to seek legal advice?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had no other purpose. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. And, in fact, you did receive legal advice from the Thomas More Law Center?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not receive any other advice, correct, nothing other than legal advice?
A. I didn't hear what you said.
Q. You received no advice from the Thomas More Law Center other than legal advice. Isn't that true?
A. Except for them letting me know that the book --
MR. GILLEN: Excuse me, Your Honor, objection. May I just -- for the witness's benefit, may I make clear that he shouldn't disclose any legal communications in his testimony so he doesn't waive any privilege. And forgive me, Steve, for interrupting you. I just want to make sure that he observes the line.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, they have asserted the privilege, and we're not challenging the privilege.
THE COURT: Well, as the privilege related to the communications with counsel for the Discovery Institute, as I understood it, there was a claim that it was so inextricably intertwined that you couldn't get into any of the nonlegal advice. Now, what's your intention here?
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I intend to establish that the only advice that they got was legal advice and that they wouldn't let us discover any of their communications except for the fact that he got -- he learned of Pandas.
THE COURT: So you're offering it for the same purpose?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. GILLEN: And I withdraw the objection then. I didn't mean to slight Steve. I just wanted to make that clear.
THE COURT: No, I understand that. And I think in terms of any spontaneous answer that you think gets to or gets into the privilege, you can renew that, or I'll stop the witness at that point. So you can proceed.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Buckingham, as we've already established, as we've already established, you learned about the book Pandas from Thomas More Law Center. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And other than that, the only other advice that you got from the Thomas More Law Center was legal advice. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. And you told the board that you had been in contact with the Thomas More Law Center and that it would represent the board if the board were sued. Isn't that true?
A. I don't know that I used those words. I told them that the Thomas More Law Center agreed to assist us free of charge in the event we needed their assistance in this matter.
Q. And somewhere early in the process in your conversations with Thomas More Law Center, they told you that they would represent the board if it got sued. Isn't that true?
A. Again, they told me they would give us legal help if it became necessary free of charge. I don't know if "got sued" was used.
Q. Okay. And you accepted the offer from the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of the board. Isn't that true?
A. I gave -- yes, yes.
Q. Now, that occurred -- your acceptance of the offer of assistance from the Thomas More Law Center, that occurred very early on in your conversations with the Thomas More Law Center?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And then later, in December of 2004, the Thomas More Law Center was formally engaged to be the counsel for the board in this litigation. Correct?
A. What time frame did you give us?
Q. I said December, 2004.
A. December of 2004 I wasn't there.
Q. Right, but you know that the board formally engaged the Thomas More Law Center to assist in this litigation in December, 2004. Even though you weren't at that meeting, you knew that. Right?
A. I knew it was formally engaged. I didn't know exactly when because I wasn't at any of the meetings in December.
Q. And between the time that you first talked to Thomas More Law Center and the time the Thomas More Law Center was formally engaged, you talked to them approximately four to five times?
A. Are you saying 45 or four to five?
Q. I meant four to five times.
A. I'm not sure how many times I talked to them.
Q. Well, why don't you -- let me ask you a separate question. Between the first time that you talked to Thomas More Law Center and October 18th, how many times did you talk to Thomas More Law Center?
A. Don't know.
Q. It was at least several times. Correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, you said at your deposition that you talked to them two to four times prior to October 18th. Do you recall that?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Well, take a look at Page 120 of your January 3rd deposition.
A. I'm there.
Q. And if you look at Page 120, Line 19, Question: How many times prior to October 18th did you talk to anyone from the Thomas More Law Center? And then there was an objection. And the answer: Maybe two, three, three times, maybe four. Do you see that?
A. Again, I wasn't sure there either. That's why I answered it that way.
Q. But it was two or more times. Correct?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. And all the calls and all the communications that you had with Thomas More Law Center were about -- were all about seeking legal advice. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. And you didn't get any other kind of advice?
A. No, sir.
Q. And, in fact, your attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center prevented the plaintiffs in this case from discovering the substance of the communications that you and the board had with Thomas More Law Center by asserting the attorney-client privilege. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's just shift to another subject now, Mr. Buckingham. You don't recall, as we just established a few minutes ago, when the subject of intelligent design first came up. Correct?
A. At all?
Q. No, with respect to the board and the process that we're talking about today.
A. Well, the process includes the curriculum committee, and that would have been in, I guess, the spring of 2004.
Q. So it's your testimony today that it did come up in the curriculum committee in the spring of 2004?
A. I'm just guessing. I don't know.
Q. You don't know. And you yourself looked into the subject of intelligent design in the summer of 2004. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the curriculum committee didn't look into it, you looked into it. Isn't that true?
A. I was on the curriculum committee.
Q. Right, but the curriculum committee as a whole didn't look into it, you personally looked into it. Isn't that true?
A. I don't know if they did or not. I know I did.
Q. Well, let's just look at the transcript of your deposition on January 3rd. You told me -- well, let's go to Page 68 of that deposition. Are you at that page?
A. Page 60, yes, sir.
Q. 68.
A. 68. I'm there.
Q. And we're talking -- the subject is intelligent design, and I asked you on Line 8, Well, you were on the curriculum committee in the summer of 2004? Answer: Yes. And the curriculum committee looked at it, didn't they? Answer: I won't say the curriculum committee did. I did. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So that's what you told us on January the 3rd. Right?
A. That's what I said. And if I could clarify my answer, when you talk about curriculum committee, I'm thinking you're talking about the committee as a whole at one time, not individual members of the curriculum committee doing it at their leisure.
Q. Well, all you know about is what you did at your leisure?
A. That's true.
Q. And let's talk about what you did. You looked at the subject of intelligent design on the computer. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You went to some Web sites?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't remember what Web sites you went to?
A. No. Wherever the computer took me.
Q. And you ended up discussing the subject with Thomas More Law Center. And I don't want to get into the substance of that, but you ended up discussing it with Thomas More Law Center. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also talked to the Discovery Institute about intelligent design. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, I don't want to get into the substance of that, but both of those, Thomas More and Discovery Institute, that was legal advice about intelligent design. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also got yourself a copy of Of Pandas and People. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. You ordered that from the Internet?
A. Yes.
Q. And you spent some time glancing through it. Correct?
A.
A minimal amount of time, yes.
Q. Right. You didn't read it?
A. Right.
Q. You just flipped through the pages to see if there were any religious references in there. Correct?
A. I won't say that. I just flipped through the pages to try to get a general idea of what the content of the text was. I wasn't looking for anything religious in it.
Q. Well, that's not what you told us at your deposition. If you go to the March 31st deposition at Page 18.
A. I'm there.
Q. Are you at Page 18, Mr. Buckingham?
A. Yes.
Q. I asked -- Mr. Rothschild asked you on Line 9, Question: Did you feel, when you reviewed Pandas, you understood it? Answer: I didn't attempt to understand it fully. I wanted to make sure it didn't have a religious overtone. Question: How did you go about doing that? Answer: By reading it. Question: Did you read it cover to cover? Answer: I didn't read every single page. I skimmed through it. I looked for key words, that kind of thing. Question: What kind of key words were you looking for? Answer: God, Christianity, Bible, Creation. It wasn't there. Do you remember giving that testimony?
A. That's true, I wanted to make sure it wasn't there.
Q. And the things that we just talked about is all that you did to personally educate yourself about intelligent design before October 18th. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's talk about your knowledge of what the rest of the board reviewed before October 18th. You know that some of the board members received copies of Pandas. Correct?
A. I know they went and picked them up, if that's what you mean by received them, yes.
Q. And surmised that some of them may have read parts or all of Pandas. Right?
A. I surmised they opened the book and looked at it. I don't know how much they read or if they read it at all or just skimmed through it.
Q. And that's the only material that you're aware of that any board members received, was Pandas? Materials about intelligent design I mean.
A. Yes.
Q. And no one made any kind of presentation to the board of directors about the subject of intelligent design, did they?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. And you did not participate in any discussions with board members in which you tried to persuade them to vote in favor of including intelligent design in the board curriculum, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you never participated in any discussions where any board members described their understanding of intelligent design, did you?
A. Could you ask me the question again?
Q. Sure. You never participated in any discussions with any members of the board of directors of the Dover Area School District in which any of them described their understanding of the subject of intelligent design. Isn't that true?
A. I don't know if it is or not.
Q. When I asked you this question at -- or when Mr. Rothschild asked you this at your deposition, you said not that you know of. So you don't know of any discussions in which a board member described his or her understanding of the subject intelligent design, do you?
A. I'm sorry, I missed the last part of your question. You kind of dropped off.
Q. No, that's fine. I'd be happy to repeat. I'm just saying, you're not saying here today that you know of or you can remember some discussion involving board members in which someone on the board described their understanding of the subject of intelligent design?
A. No.
Q. And no one from the board ever contacted the National Academy of Sciences to ask about the subject of biology textbooks or teaching biology to high school students. Correct?
A. I don't know if they did or not.
Q. You don't have any information to suggest that anyone did that. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. And you don't have any information to suggest that anyone contacted the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences for the same kind of information?
A. Again, I don't know if they did or not.
Q. And you're not aware that anybody from the board contacted the American Federation of Biology Teachers to find out about teaching biology to high school students?
A. Again, I don't know if they did or not.
Q. And you're not aware, in fact, that the board contacted any scientific or educational organizations to find out about teaching biology or evolution or related subjects to high school students, are you?
A. I think that's what the Discovery Institute gave me information on.
Q. Other than the Discovery Institute, which concerned legal advice, you're not aware of anyone from the board contacting any organizations to seek information -- any educational or scientific organizations to seek information about teaching biology or related subjects to high school students, are you?
A. I don't know if they did or not.
Q. And you're not familiar with the positions of any of the organizations that I just mentioned -- and that is the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences or the American Federation of Biology Teachers -- about whether intelligent design should be presented to students. Right? You're not aware of any of their statements or positions on that subject?
A. That's true.
THE COURT: Mr. Buckingham, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up a little bit --
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: -- or get a little closer to the microphone because I'm having trouble hearing you, and if I am, then certainly counsel is probably having difficulty. So try to keep your voice up or get a little closer to the microphone.
THE WITNESS: Understood, Your Honor. Thank you.
Q. And in the entire process of developing and passing this resolution to include intelligent design in the high school science curriculum, the only organizations that the board ever contacted, to your knowledge, were the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center. Correct?
A. Could you ask me that question again?
Q. Sure. During the entire time that the board was considering or discussing in any way the change to the biology curriculum or the approval of the high school biology textbook or Pandas and People, you're not aware that the board or anyone for the board or acting on behalf of the board contacted any organization other than the Thomas More Law Center or the Discovery Institute. Isn't that true?
A. Again, I don't know if they did or not.
Q. But you don't have any information to suggest that they did. Correct?
A. True.
Q. Now, you were the board member who was pushing the subject of intelligent design. Isn't that true?
A. I was the head of the curriculum committee, and I was put in the position where I was involved in most of the discussions. I won't say I was the board member that pushed it. There were nine people on that board. I couldn't do it all by myself.
Q. Well, would you agree with me that you were the one who kept the conversation going about intelligent design?
A. I took part in certainly more than one conversation about intelligent design. I won't say I kept it going. Some of the dialogue came from the other side.
Q. Well, you were the board member who showed the most interest in the issue and made sure that the board curriculum committee kept addressing the issue of intelligent design. Isn't that true?
A. I won't say that's true. It was a collective effort.
Q. Well, when I asked you this at your deposition, you told me you were the one who kept the conversation about intelligent design going on the board. Do you remember that?
A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. Please take a look at Page 95 of your deposition transcript, the one of January 3rd.
A. January 3rd?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I'm sorry, what was the page again?
Q. 95. Please let me know when you're there.
A. I'm there.
Q. Question, Line 10: Were you the one who was pushing the idea of including intelligent design in the curriculum? Answer: I wouldn't characterize it that way. Question: How would you characterize it? Answer: I was the one that -- I was one that -- I would say I kept the conversation going. Isn't that your testimony?
A. That's what it says. And the reason it says that -- may I clarify my answer? Usually when something was directed to the curriculum committee or to the board, it was directed at me with regards to intelligent design. In that respect, I took a part in keeping the conversation going.
Q. And, in fact, other members of the board were keeping the conversation going, as well. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And other members of the board were pushing the idea of intelligent design?
A. I won't say -- I won't use the word "pushing." Intelligent design is something that we felt would be beneficial to the kids because it's a scientific theory, and we thought we'd be doing the kids a good service by including that in their curriculum.
Q. And what other board members were helping to keep the conversation going about intelligent design during the -- throughout the process?
A. Sheila Harkins, Alan Bonsell, Heather Geesey. Noel Wenrich was for a while. For a while Jeff Brown was and Angie Yingling.
Q. Now, it's your position that you wanted other scientific theories taught in addition to the theory of evolution so that the students would have a more well-rounded science education. Correct?
A. Well, I focused on intelligent design because I thought I knew at least a little something about that, if not a whole lot, and the other theories I probably knew little or nothing about.
Q. And you didn't insist or suggest any alternatives to any scientific theories other than evolution, did you, Mr. Buckingham?
A. I'm sorry, could you ask me again?
Q. Sure. You didn't suggest alternatives to any scientific theories other than the theory of evolution. Isn't that true?
A. The theory of evolution, to my understanding, was flawed and it had gaps in it and I didn't want the students to hear just that because they would accept it as fact when there is another viable scientific theory out there called intelligent design. I wanted them to have more of a well-rounded education.
Q. But my point is, you didn't suggest alternatives to any scientific theories that might be covered in the high school biology class other than the scientific theory of evolution, did you?
A. I didn't know anything about other theories. You know, I could only deal with what I had a little bit of knowledge of.
Q. Well, you didn't suggest any alternatives to any scientific theories in the chemistry class or the physics class, either, did you?
A. I don't know anything about chemistry or physics at all. I couldn't do that.
Q. Right. You were primarily concerned with evolution?
A. Because I knew a little bit about it and I knew a little about intelligent design, and I felt including intelligent design would be beneficial for the students.
Q. You don't have any background in science, do you, Mr. Buckingham?
A. No, I don't, nothing formal.
Q. Excuse me?
A. Nothing formal, no, sir.
Q. And, in fact, the school district has some paid professionals who are knowledgeable in the area of science education, doesn't it?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Those are the science teachers. Right?
A. That's true.
Q. And the science teachers didn't want to present intelligent design as an alternative, did they?
A. That's true.
Q. In fact, they didn't even want to mention it. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. So you disregarded or the board disregarded the view of the only scientific education advisors that it had. Isn't that correct?
A. We did not disregard it. We considered it when we made our decisions.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, you don't even know whether intelligent design is considered good science, do you?
A. In my opinion, it is, and in the opinion of a lot of scientists, it is.
Q. Well, at your deposition, Mr. Rothschild asked you about this, and you said that you didn't even know whether it was good science. Do you remember that?
A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. Please turn to Page 22 of your February -- excuse me, March 31st deposition.
A. Page 22?
Q. Yes, sir. Line 3.
A. I'm there.
Q. Mr. Rothschild asked you the following questions, and you gave the following answers: Is it your understanding that intelligent design is a scientifically sound concept? Answer: I think it is a scientific theory. Question: And if you can just answer my question. Do you have an understanding of whether it is sound science, good science? Answer: I'm not a scientist, I can't answer that. That was your testimony, wasn't it?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, you wanted the students to hear about the possibility that aspects of the theory of evolution might be wrong. Right? That's what you wanted?
A. There were some scientists that said there were some flaws and gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution, and I thought they should be told about it in the normal course of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.
Q. But just to focus on my question, you wanted the students to hear about the possibility that some aspects of the theory of evolution were wrong. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you specifically wanted the students to hear that the concept of common ancestry between humans and other species was wrong. Isn't that true?
A. I don't remember saying that.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, if you could turn in your notebook to what's been marked as P819. It's the last exhibit in the book. And, Matt, if you could bring that up.
A. Okay, I'm there.
Q. I'd like you to take a look at this document. It's a news item that was published in the Agape Press on October the 4th, 2004, isn't it?
A. I have a York Dispatch.
Q. It's the very last thing in your notebook.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, may I approach to help?
THE COURT: You may.
THE WITNESS: I have it now, I have it now.
Q. Isn't that right? It's a news item that was published in the Agape Press on October 4th, 2004. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar with the Agape Press?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. You didn't know that it was a religious news organization?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, take a look at the third full paragraph here. Matt, if you could highlight that. And there's a statement here that's attributed to you. It says -- and I'm looking at the second sentence of the third full paragraph. Quotes, However, the school district's curriculum chairman, Bill Buckingham, says adding the book will simply provide a balanced presentation that allows students not only to learn about Darwin's theory on the origins of species, but also to hear about the possibility that some of Darwin's suppositions, including the idea that human beings evolved from apes, were wrong, close quotes. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. Do you remember making a statement like that to a news reporter?
A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. And does that correctly state your position at the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. What's incorrect about that?
A. I didn't say including the idea that humans -- I don't think I said any of it to a reporter. Did I misunderstand your question? I'm sorry?
Q. You can just put that aside for right now, Mr. Buckingham. I'm going to ask you -- that exhibit we're not going to look at again, but we might look at the binder in just a minute.
Now, you're aware that a number of copies of Of Pandas and People were donated to the high school?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were donated to be used in the classroom as reference texts. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were approximately 60 copies that were donated. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Nilsen, who is the superintendent, accepted that donation?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, why don't we take a look just quickly at P78, Page 9. It will come up on your monitor or you can look in your book. P78, if you look at it, is the agenda for the October 4th, 2004 meeting of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if you go -- if you look at Page 9, there's a section there under curriculum with your name next to it.
A. I'm looking at the monitor.
Q. I'm sorry, I told you -- I misled you. I said don't bother looking at the -- you need to look at the exhibit itself just to make sure you've got the right one here. Please look at P78.
A. Okay, I have it.
Q. That's the agenda for the October 4th meeting of the board of directors. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you'll look at Page 9 of that, which has also got the Bates Number 135 at the bottom --
A. I have it.
Q. That shows that -- and it says, quotes, The superintendent has approved the donation of two classroom sets, 25 each, of Of Pandas and People. The classroom sets will be used as references and will be made available to all students, close quotes. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that, actually, is what happened at the board meeting on October the 4th, that information was provided to the board?
A. Yes.
Other Links:
|
Q. Now, let's talk about that donation. Pandas and People was donated to the school district. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. No taxpayer funds were involved?
A. That's true.
Q. And, in fact, you took up a collection at your church for Pandas and People. Right?
A. Not as such I didn't, no.
Q. Well, you did take up a collection at your church. Right?
A. Money was donated, but I didn't ask for it.
Q. You stood in the front of your church, in the Harmony Grove Community Church, and you made a statement that you were accepting donations for the book Pandas and People. Correct?
A. No, I didn't. I'm sorry, I did say that, but there was more to it.
Q. In fact, you checked with one of the church elders before getting up to make that statement to see if it was okay if you could make that statement at the front of your church. Correct?
A. I spoke to a church elder to ask if I could have about two minutes prior to the church starting to address the congregation, yes.
Q. And this was on a Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stood not in the pulpit but in the front of the pews while people were actually in the church. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that there's a need, we don't want to use taxpayer dollars, and if you feel led to donate, fine. I'm not asking for money, I'm just letting you know there's a need. That's what you said. Right?
A. That's true.
Q. And you also said that the books were going to be used as a supplement to use with the regular textbook. Correct?
A. At that time that might have been the thinking. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about that.
Q. Well, you didn't say anything other than what I just said to you to the church, the people in the church, on that Sunday when you were standing there asking them to give if they felt that they wanted to. Correct?
A. By "supplement," I meant a reference book to go along supplementing the regular biology book, but that's true.
Q. Right. But what I'm saying is, it's your testimony, your claim, that you didn't say anything more than what I just said, and that is specifically that there's a need and we don't want to use taxpayer dollars, if you want to donate, fine, I'm not asking for money, I'm just letting you know there's a need, and the books are going to be used as a supplement with the regular textbook. You didn't say anything more than that to the people in the church. Correct?
A. That's true.
Q. And the people in the church donated mostly cash but one check totaling $850?
A. That's true.
Q. And, Mr. Buckingham, isn't it true that you made a reference in that statement to those church members and you told them that it was important they do this for religious reasons?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. You didn't raise money for Pandas and People anyplace other than your church, did you?
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, objection. To the extent that Mr. Harvey is trying to create an inference that by asking at church, there's some sort of religious plot, I believe the question begins to burden Mr. Buckingham's ability to associate for the purpose of his free exercise. I mean, where he asked -- you know, if he asked the church, if that's where his friends and community is, that's his business. It's improper to try and draw some inference to that.
THE COURT: Well, that's argument. That's not an evidentiary objection, is it?
MR. GILLEN: Well, I think it's an evidentiary objection to the extent that he's seeking to elicit this information to support the inference proposed by his question.
THE COURT: I'm still hearing argument. I'm not hearing an objection --
MR. GILLEN: Well, and I don't wish to argue.
THE COURT: -- based on the rules of evidence. I understand your point, and it might be argument, it might be valid argument. Under the circumstances, I think the question is fair. He asked him did he raise money at any other place than his church.
MR. GILLEN: Yes. And my purpose is in suggesting that the thrust of the question to create that inference is improper because he's trying to make it look as if there was some sort of religious mission when he asked his friends.
THE COURT: Well, that goes to the weight that I'll give it. It's a bench trial. I mean, I still don't hear something that's grounded in the rules of evidence.
MR. GILLEN: Well, I guess I'm saying he does have a First Amendment privilege to free exercise, and I think that Mr. Harvey is -- the thrust of his question right now is to burden his ability to associate and ask his co-religionists to support something he thinks is worthwhile.
THE COURT: Unless I missed something, though, the First Amendment privilege that he has that you're citing to doesn't act as a bar to answering that question. Do you think it does?
MR. GILLEN: Well, I think it does border right on the limit because it is creating this inference that would be a burden on his free exercise right. If people weren't free to do what he's done, to ask, or if it could be used against them later, it would be a burden on their ability to go in front of any congregation and ask support for any number of things.
THE COURT: I don't see it, but let's hear from Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I don't in any way mean to infringe upon this man's religious freedom in any way, but if he's going to take the stand and claim that he had no religious purpose in the actions of the school board and then they took up a donation at a church, I'm entitled to explore that to show that he, indeed, had religious purposes.
THE COURT: I think it's a fair question in the context of this case and in the line of questions that Mr. Harvey has already asked, so I overrule the objection. Do you remember the question, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: All right. You can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I did that. And I was going to ask to clarify my answer, but it's kind of been done by my attorney there. My wife and I are both very active in our church, and the friends that we have in the community basically are the people that go to our church. They're the people we talk to, they're the people we socialize with basically more than, other than family, anyone else. And that was the natural place for me to go to do that.
Q. So you collected money at the church because the church is your life, is what you're essentially saying. Correct?
A. I didn't say the church is my life. I have a family. I have other interests. But the church is an important part of my life. The people that go there are important to me. It's, if you will, an extended family, and that is how I got to make the statement there. It had nothing to do with, look, because we're Christians, I think we ought to do that. It had nothing -- I didn't mention Christianity at all. I talked to them just like they were my friends, which they are.
Q. And the direct answer to the question I asked you previously is, you didn't ask for money at any place other than your church. Isn't that true?
A. I don't know that I asked for money there. I guess we get -- what does "asked" mean? I said what you said. I said if you want to give money, fine. I'm not asking you for any, I'm not telling you to give any, it's up to you if you see a need and you want to help.
Q. Well, you didn't go to any place other than your church to make any kind of a statement and then accept whatever donations people would spontaneously give you. You only did that at your church. Right?
A. I don't go to many other places where I would have people like -- a group of people. You know, I did what I could do with the school board. I was active in the church. I had physical limitations. There were limitations to what I could do, and I did the best I could with what I had.
Q. You said earlier that a literal reading of the Bible was one of the foundations of your faith?
A. True.
Q. And that's true for the -- you believe for the people who worship with you at your church, the Harmony Grove Community Church. Correct?
A. I won't speak for them.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, do you really think that the people at your church would have given money for this book if they didn't think that there was some religious connection to it?
A. The people in our church give money to a lot of things. This book was one thing of many that they donated money to, and it's not always because of a religious thing.
Q. Do they usually donate money to public schools or, better yet, have they ever donated any money to a public school before?
A. I don't know. I've only been going to church there for ten years.
Q. Now, let's take a look at what's been marked as P80. Matt, could you put that up. Mr. Buckingham, do you have in front of you what's been marked as P80?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. That's actually a copy of the check that you wrote to Donald Bonsell for the $850 that you collected at your church. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, we've whited out any identifying information, any codes or anything like that. I don't know whether you have that check -- your account still open, but I just want to let you know there's no -- hopefully there's no information on there. And if you look at this, the check is dated October the 4th, 2004. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's drawn on the bank account for you and your wife. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And under the "re" line, it says, Of Pandas and People -- I can't read the last word, can you?
A. Books.
Q. And that's your handwriting. Right?
A. I think I printed it, yes.
Q. And then that's your signature on the check?
A. Yes.
Q. And the check is, in fact, for $850. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Donald Bonsell is Alan Bonsell's father. Right?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And you gave the check to Alan Bonsell to give to his father. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you made the check out to Alan -- to Donald Bonsell because it was your understanding that he was actually going to be the one who purchased the copies of Of Pandas and People. Right?
A. I felt he probably would, but I didn't know if he was going to give it to someone else.
Q. And at a board meeting in the fall of 2004, a question was raised by a man named Larry Snoke, who was a former member of the board, about who donated the copies of Pandas to the school district. Right?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And the board didn't provide any answer to Mr. Snoke's question, did they?
A. I don't recall what the response was.
Q. Well, you didn't speak up and say that you knew where the money came from, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. And are you aware that Mr. Alan Bonsell spoke up and said he knew where the money came from?
A. I don't remember him saying that.
Q. And the reason why you didn't speak up at the board meeting in the fall of 2004 about who donated the money for the donation of Pandas is because you didn't want anybody to know that the money was raised at a church. Isn't that true?
A. That's not true. I didn't -- I couldn't say who donated the money because I didn't know where cash came from. We had mailboxes inside the church that the pastor and the elders used to communicate with us from week to week, and envelopes would be placed in there with cash in it. There was no note, there was nothing, it was just cash. I didn't know who gave it to me, I just knew where it came from.
Q. So you just knew that it came from members of your church, but you didn't know which specific members of your church. Right?
A. As far as the cash goes, that's true.
Q. And there was also one check, and you knew who that came from. Right?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you think that because you didn't know the specific names of the people at your church who gave the money, that you shouldn't tell this former board member, this member of the public, where this -- that the money for the donation was collected at your church. You didn't think you should share that information. Right?
A. I didn't see where it was relevant.
Q. Well, actually, you wanted to hide that information. Isn't that true, Mr. Buckingham?
A. No. If someone would have asked me if it came from the church, the people at the church, I would have told them it did, but it never came up.
Q. Well, Mr. Buckingham --
A. It was put to us, who donated the money, and I don't know who did. I know there were people in a certain setting that did, but I don't know who they were.
Q. If someone had asked you specifically about that, you would have told them. Right?
A. Asked me about what?
Q. About who donated the money.
A. I don't know who donated the money.
Q. I'm asking you, if somebody had asked you specifically who donated the money, you're telling us you would have told them. Right?
A. As far as the cash goes, yes.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Buckingham, I asked you specifically who donated the money, and you didn't tell me at your deposition on January the 3rd, 2005. Isn't that true?
A. The cash are you talking about?
Q. I asked -- let's review your testimony. Please go to Page 57, Line 9.
A. Of the March or --
Q. This is January 3rd.
A. 57, Line 9?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I'm there.
Q. I asked you the following questions, and you gave the following answers:
Question: The school district received a number of copies of the book Of Pandas and People. Correct? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you know how many copies? Answer: I've been told there were 60. I haven't seen them. Question: Do you know where that came from, who donated the money? Answer: No, I don't. Question: You have no idea? Answer: I have thoughts, but I don't know. Question: What are your thoughts? Answer: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell, who was board president at the time. Question: Why do you think -- I know you're not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell? Answer: Because he was the president of the board at the time, and I just deduced from that that.
That was the testimony that you gave on January the 3rd of 2005. Isn't that true?
A. Doesn't that reference the books, not the money?
Q. Isn't that the testimony that you gave on January the 3rd, 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if you'll turn, Mr. Buckingham, to -- or, actually, go down the page to Line 24 on Page 58. Didn't I ask you the following questions and you give the following answers:
Question: Were you ever at a board meeting where someone asked who donated the book to the school, in fact, Larry Snoke, a former board member asking who donated it? Answer: I think he expressed a wonder-type thing over where they came from. I don't think -- I don't remember anybody asking directly where they came from. Question: Were you curious to know where it came from? Answer: I know they came from someone in the public sector. I know we didn't use taxpayer funds to pay for them.
Question: Did you ask where it came from? Answer: No. Question: Why didn't you ask? Answer: Didn't want to know. Question: Why didn't you want to know? Answer: Well, what purpose would it serve? Question: Well, because you're a board member and the school district is part of your responsibility as a board member and maybe where these books came from would be something that you should know. Answer: No, I think it was a wonderful gesture, and I didn't concern myself with where they came from.
That was your testimony, wasn't it, Mr. Buckingham?
A. I believe Larry Snoke was asking where the money came from, not where the books came from, and that was why I answered that that way. And the rest of it is my testimony, yes.
Q. Well, when I asked you, why didn't you ask where it came from, and you said, didn't want to know, what you really meant to say was that you knew where it came from. That was the right answer there, wasn't it? That was the correct answer?
A. I didn't know who donated the cash. I knew they were in a certain building when they put it in the box, but I don't know who put the cash in the box.
Q. You knew that I was seeking that --
A. In the mailbox.
Q. You knew that I was seeking that information when I asked you those questions on January 3rd, and you didn't give me the -- you didn't tell me anything about donations being taken -- a collection being taken at your church. Isn't that correct?
A. I didn't consider it a collection. I didn't ask for it. They just did it because there was a need there. I didn't ask them for it.
Q. Mr. Buckingham, you lied to me at your deposition on January 3rd, 2005. Isn't that true?
A. How so?
Q. By not telling me, when I asked you those questions, that you knew that a collection had been taken at your church for the book Of Pandas and People.
A. I did not take a collection.
Q. Well, you wrote the check to Donald Bonsell, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you didn't tell me that you knew that -- anything about Mr. Bonsell, did you?
A. I don't recall if I did or not.
Q. Well, we just read your testimony. You didn't say anything about Donald Bonsell in that testimony, did you? Do you want to go back and look at it?
A. Well, there's more testimony than that. I don't know if I referenced him anyplace else in it or not.
Q. Well, when I was asking you about where the donation of Of Pandas and People came from, you didn't mention anything about Donald Bonsell, did you? Do we need to relook at your testimony again?
A. I'd like to, yes.
Q. Okay. Let's do that. January 3, Page 57, Line 9. Let me read it to you again, Mr. Buckingham, and you tell me if I've got it right.
Question: The school district received a number of copies of the book Pandas and People. Correct? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you know how many copies? Answer: I've been told there were 60. I haven't seen them. Question: Do you know where that came from, who donated them? Answer: No, I don't. Question: You have no idea? Answer: I have thoughts, but I don't know. Question: What are your thoughts? Answer: I think it could have a tie to Alan Bonsell who was board president at the time. Question: Why do you think -- I know you're not saying it was, but why do you think it might have ties to Mr. Bonsell? Answer: Because he was the president of the board at that time, and I just deduced from that that. Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. No reference to Donald Bonsell in there. Right?
A. No, there wasn't.
Q. You should have told me about that at the time, shouldn't you, to be truthful?
A. I thought I answered the question the way you asked it. Money was given to Alan Bonsell to forward to someone, turning out to be his father, that it was going to go someplace else. I don't --
Q. Well, you knew that it was being given to Donald Bonsell because you wrote his name on the check?
A. That's true.
THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, why don't you move to the next area. I get the point, and you've made the point very effectively, and I don't think you need to stay in this area. I'll give you some more latitude if you want, a little bit, but --
MR. HARVEY: Your honor, I'm done.
THE COURT: -- I get the point effectively.
MR. HARVEY: No further questions at this time.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gillen.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Good afternoon, Bill.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Mr. Harvey has covered a great deal of ground this morning, and I've got a few questions that I want to ask you. There was some mention of a moment of silence or prayer in 2003. Let me ask you, while you were on the Dover Area School District board, did you ever contemplate requiring mandatory prayer for students?
A. Never.
Q. Did you ever discuss mandatory prayer for students with anyone on the Dover Area School District school board?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Harvey has directed your attention to certain portions of your deposition taken on March 31st, 2005. I'd ask you to look at Page 22.
A. I'm sorry, page --
Q. 22. And the portion of the deposition that you were questioned about had to do with whether you understood intelligent design was a scientific theory. Something that was not noticed was your testimony on the remainder of that page. And I'd like to ask you, Bill, when you considered intelligent design as a scientific theory, where did you get that idea? That's a fair question. Where did you get that idea?
A. I first heard the term "intelligent design" right after I came on the school board. And when I was appointed to the chair of the curriculum committee right prior -- or right after, I researched intelligent design on the computer to some extent, not exhaustive, to try to familiarize myself with it.
Q. And did you encounter information about scientists who you believe supported the theory?
A. Yes, I did. I came across one Web site that said there were like 300 scientists that supported it.
Q. At any time during this process relating to the biology text and the change to the biology curriculum did you believe that intelligent design was a religious theory?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you believe that intelligent design was creationism?
A. No, sir.
Q. I want to ask you a few questions about the statement given by your wife without causing undue marital discord. I want to ask you, did she discuss the content of what she was going to say with you prior to attending the board meeting?
A. No, sir, she did not.
Q. Did she tell you what issue she was going to address?
A. No, she did not.
Q. Did you talk to her afterwards about what she had said?
A. I did talk to her afterwards about what she said, and I told her that we weren't -- that her remarks were biblical and that we weren't talking about creationism, we were talking about intelligent design, and intelligent design is not a biblical theory, it's a scientific theory, and that she was way off base when she made her remarks.
Q. There's this notion you've expressed here today about the myth of separation of church and state or separation of church and state being a myth. You've said that you mentioned that statement at some of these board meetings. And I want to ask you, how did that come up, the separation of church and state?
A. It came up in reference to things said by people in the public, and on one occasion Angie Yingling uttered those words to me. And my response was, in my opinion, the separation of church and state is a myth. I don't think it's in the Constitution anyway.
Q. Yeah, but what was your point? I mean, was your point separation of --
A. We weren't teaching -- I'm sorry.
Q. What was your point? You need to explain that so it's not misunderstood. Was your point that separation of church and state is a myth, so we can teach creationism?
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, objection. Leading.
MR. GILLEN: I'm asking what his point was.
THE COURT: Well, you can ask him what his point was, but not the second part of the question, so the objection is sustained. You can rephrase.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
Q. What was your point when you're raising this notion that --
A. Well, when the separation of church and state issue was raised, the point was that we were not talking about creationism, we were talking about intelligent design, which had nothing to do with the church at all.
Q. There's been discussion, too, about a mural. And I want you to explain, what was the significance of the mural to you?
A. The science teachers told us they didn't feel comfortable teaching the origins of life. And I found out after that that there had been a teaching aid in a biology classroom aiding in the teaching of just that, the origins of life. And I felt like I was kind of sandbagged, and I just felt I wasn't being dealt with fairly.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Because I wasn't being told the truth.
Q. By whom?
A. By the teachers in the science department.
Q. There's been some discussion of Mr. Reeser. During this period, the June, July, the summer of 2004, did you know that Mr. Reeser had destroyed that mural?
A. I didn't even know there was a mural until after we had this -- we talked about the teachers didn't want to teach the origins of life, and we walked out of the meeting, and Mrs. Harkins says, that's funny, that doesn't go along with the mural that was the teaching aid in the biology room. I said, what mural are you talking about? I'd like to see it. And she said, it's not there anymore.
So I left, and I knew that Larry Reeser was a long-time employee of this school district. I thought, well, if anybody saw it, he did. So I went to his house, and I asked him if he had ever seen anything like that. And he said, I not only saw it, I have pictures of it. And he gave me two pictures of it.
Q. And what was the significance of the pictures? Why did you take them?
A. I took them because they were given to me, and, to me, they helped to substantiate that I didn't think I was being dealt with fairly. I felt like I was being sandbagged, because on one hand they're saying they don't want to teach origins of life, but on the other hand, they have a mural in the biology class as a teaching aid for origins of life.
Q. Well, let me ask you about the mural. Did you tell Jen Miller that you danced with glee or laughed with glee when the mural was destroyed?
A. I didn't know anything about that mural until after I got on the curriculum committee and we talked to the science department and Sheila Harkins told me that it existed. I had never heard of it.
Q. Mr. Harvey has asked you some questions about putting the proposed curriculum change on the agenda for the October 18th, 2004 meeting despite the fact that it had not been placed on the agenda for the prior meeting.
Had items been placed on the agenda for a second board meeting without consideration at a prior board meeting on other occasions?
A. As I recall they had, if they had to be expedited for some reason.
Q. Bill, when you voted for this curriculum change on October 18th, 2004, did you believe intelligent design was creationism?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Let me ask you about conversations with Casey Brown. Did you ever ask Casey Brown if she was born again?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did Casey Brown ever discuss her religious beliefs with you?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Did you ever question Casey Brown about her religious beliefs?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever pressure Angie Yingling to vote on any measure of the Dover Area School District school board that was up for review, up for consideration by the board saying that she had to do so to be a good Christian?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Well, let me ask you this. When you voted for this curriculum change, did you believe that you were putting in place an illegal curriculum change?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Was it your purpose to permanently prevent the purchase of the biology textbook recommended by the science faculty of Dover Area School District at any time while you were on the board?
A. No, sir.
MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. I'm willing not to object to a certain amount of leading because it's sometimes helpful to develop the testimony and keep things moving, but we're now exclusively into leading, and I object to the question.
THE COURT: Well, he answered that question. Mr. Gillen, I'll ask you to try to lead only in those areas that are likely not going to be problematic, and these go to the heart of the case, so use some caution.
MR. GILLEN: I will attempt to do so, Your Honor.
Q. Did you ever intend to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory at Dover Area School District?
MR. HARVEY: Objection, leading.
MR. GILLEN: That's did, did you ever intend. How else can I ask him, I guess is the question?
THE COURT: I'm going to allow the question because we've got to keep moving. I'll allow that particular question, and I'll overrule the objection. You can answer the question, sir.
THE WITNESS: Could you ask me again, please?
Q. Did you ever have as your purpose to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory at Dover Area School District?
A. Never.
Q. What was your purpose in supporting the proposed curriculum change on October 18th, 2004?
A. We were doing it for the students, to give them an alternative scientific theory to go along with their biology class. We thought we were doing something good for them.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I'll give one more round to Mr. Harvey. Now, let me just ask, are you going to be fairly brief?
MR. HARVEY: Extremely, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, because --
MR. HARVEY: In fact, it's over.
THE COURT: You don't have any questions?
MR. HARVEY: I don't have any questions.
THE COURT: Because I think this would be an appropriate time to take a break. I know you want to get the reporters' testimony in today, do we not? I see Mr. Benn standing patiently in the back. So why don't we take a break at this point for about 15 minutes and -- or 20 minutes, let's say, and then we will pick up. And I think that should give us enough time, plenty of time to get the reporters' testimony in before we close the record for today. We'll be in recess for 20 minutes.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
