Dill: Then that would be sometime between 1994 and 1996, since it says she was in junior high.
Maybe my math is wrong. The SLTrib reports that the victim said she was abused for ten years leading up to reporting the abuse to Bishop Hatch. The Trib reports her abuse started in 1988. 1988 + 10 = 1998. Perhaps ten years of abuse spanned a period before and after she claims to have reported the abuse to her bishop. However, I don't get that impression from the Trib's report.
Six: With respect, that is the newspaper account from one side of the dispute. There is no documentary evidence to support that claim. The Bishop has stated a different set of events. He-said-she-said.
Dill: I thought the newspaper was reporting what was said in court. If that is not so, I apologize. However the article says " In the lawsuit..." and then goes on to enumerate several points in the lawsuit. I assumed that meant there is documentation to support the claim, and the jury agreed.
Six: The newspaper was reporting what was claimed
by the plaintiff in court. From the media accounts there was not factual documentation...just two conflicting accounts. They jury had to choose whom to believe...10 out of 12 jurors picked the plaintiff's story. While that may be sufficient settle a civil lawsuit it does not conclusively prove who was telling the truth.
Dill: the only way the attorney can tie Bishop Hatch to LDSSS ("But Kosnoff successfully argued in court that Hatch was acting as a social services counselor when Jessica came to him for help." [emphasis by the Pickle]), and thus to a social worker's duty to report, is if Bishop Hatch is the one who made the referral to LDSSS. Without that referral, it's not possible to tie Hatch to a social worker's duty. So, since the attorney did successfully tie Bishop Hatch, not Bishop Wade, to LDSSS, assumedly via the referral and the intake process, then that is a valid assumpiton on my part.
Six: You are making an awfully big leap of logic here. The media reports did not state that the Bishop was found to be acting as a social worker because he made a referral to LDSSS. My impression was simply that his act of meeting with the plaintiff, her mother and step-father was considered by the jury to be "social work"
Six: We do know that she found out for sure at the same time the abuser made his confession to the second Bishop.
Dill: Yes. So how can she be held liable for something she didn't know (that Jessi was being abused, which Bishop Hatch knew years prior)?
Six: My reading of the media reports is that the non-reporting of the abuse came in two phases. Phase One was Bishop Hatch in 94/96/98. At this time my impression is that there was no social workers involved and the mother was not made aware by the Bishop. Phase Two is when the second Bishop got the confession -- and allegedly the Bishop, Stake President and the LDS counselors did not report the abuse. This non-reporting was also a part of the settlement. This is the period in which the mother knew...but apparently did not report the abuse herself. If the Church is liable during this time period...why not the mom?
Six: That assumes that Hatch made a referral related to the first meeting...and that he understood that there was sexual abuse...and that the counselor at the time understood that there was sexual abuse. I think this is an assumption based on speculation.
Dill: see above. The attorney convinced the jury that Hatch knew on all those accounts, and that is a matter of record, if the Trib is reporting what is in the public record.
Six: As I said above...convincing the jury to believe one person's story over anothers without the basis of factual documentation does not make it an immutable truth.