Now, the so-called, what they may consider in the chancery, a “form” of investigation, by, they say, “the local clergy”—well, this “local clergy”, I assure you, is only, if you can believe the words of Msgr. King to me upon the telephone, when I asked him, in all of this rumpus, “Please tell me, I think I'm entitled to know. Who are the people who investigated me?” And he sort of got a little confused, but he did say, “Well, two Monsignors and a seminarian.” And I thought to myself, “I understand.” Msgr. McDonald, the pastor of St. Robert's; Msgr. King, who looked upon a Sunday Holy Hour, I believe—there were alleged reports of his being out of habit in, I believe, it was a leather jacket, observing what was going on at a Sunday Holy Hour, but not speaking with me, or anyone in the group. He just eyed [the situation], and made some type of observation. And the seminarian (I have to admit something that's not quite legal, but in my own direction from God, I taped that telephone conversation with Msgr. King) —and also he stated that the seminarian read the message, and this is the so-called “judgment.” It appears that the seminarian and Msgr. McDonald, I have more to say about—he is a good soul, and for all the others involved are good souls, but misdirected, or following in obedience from the leader. But the seminarian obviously did not like or agree with the message.

More on sham investigation
As further evidence that the chancery of Brooklyn perpetrated a fraud in their so-called investigation, an investigative reporter spoke by long distance telephone with Msgr. James P. King, the former Chancellor of the Diocese of Brooklyn, and reached him at his residence in Flushing, NY. In this phone interview, Msgr. King admitted that Bishop Francis J. Mugavero had asked him to look into Veronica's visions. He claimed that he had chaired an “investigation,” with three other members, one of whom was the pastor, Msgr. J. Emmett McDonald; the others he would not name. When the reporter pressed him for the exact date of the investigation, he could not remember (“about three or four years ago”); when asked how long it had lasted (“it may have been a couple of months”); when asked if they had questioned the seer herself (no, they had not). When asked why they would ignore the testimony of the principle witness, they said, “Well, Veronica was so nice, so sincere... we didn't want to hurt her feelings.” When asked if “feelings” constituted a canonical consideration, they lamely replied, “Well, we just didn't want her to get upset.” Had they spoken to anyone else on the matter, they affirmed they had: “We questioned members of the community who had been inconvenienced by the crowds thronging to Veronica's prayer vigils. And

we questioned parishioners at St. Robert's.” Had they contacted any of Veronica's close workers? (“We may have, I don't recall”). (Mrs. Ann Ferguson, who acted as Veronica's personal secretary, has reported in no uncertain terms that not one of the workers was approached, or questioned.) Since they did not speak to the workers, where did they get their information regarding the apparitions? Their answer: they had “some typed messages” and a number of tapes of Veronica's voice made during the vigils. The messages were on the tapes, and the typed messages were transcripts of the tapes. Had they listened to the taped messages (no, they had not). They had “some typed messages,” but only had read a few to get a general idea. Had they investigated any cures or conversions? No, they weren't aware that there were any, and didn't think this was necessary to do. Had they checked the miraculous photos? Yes, they submitted some to “experts”, and the “experts” felt that the photos might be double exposures, or else amateurish tampering with Polaroid cameras. When asked who these experts were, Msgr. King could not recollect who they were.

So you can see for yourself that there was no real investigation, but it was more like a cover up. They just didn't like what the messages said. End of story.