MormonLeaks: Former Mormon Mission President Admitting to Inappropriate Interactions with Women

[california boy]

Since you seem to have some experience in this area, is it common for someone to falsely accuse someone of rape that they barely know, have never dated, and also have that kind of anger against them?  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's always awkward when someone accuses you of abuse and you just can't remember which one they are.

That "someone" having A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him, and C) repeatedly demands that he apologize.

Sarcasm is not helpful here.

27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No, "awkward" is too nice of a word.  It's just rude.  If someone is going to go through the effort of trying to rape someone, the least they can do is remember their victim and give them the dignity of not just being "someone I tried to rape" but being "______, the woman I tried to rape." 

Once you forget that the people you're raping are actual people, it really dehumanizes them. 

Again, sarcasm is not helpful in this discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So I'm guessing you've judged him guilty.

Among many similar statement in the interview, when the interviewer asks "Did you molest her?" and he replies "Yes" (on page 34), it's not a stretch for me to think that he might be guilty of what he is admitting to.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Was that in a different section than the one you quoted?

I didn't actually quote from it, but responding to JAHS' quote, yes, a different section from that one

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Among many similar statement in the interview, when the interviewer asks "Did you molest her?" and he replies "Yes" (on page 34), it's not a stretch for me to think that he might be guilty of what he is admitting to.

When the interviewer has A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) has reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him (see p. 27), and C) has repeatedly demanded that he apologize, it's not a stretch for me to think that he might have felt pressured/coerced to respond to leading/accusatory questions in ways that gave her the answers she was so obviously looking for.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 21, 2018 by smac97

[Duncan]

Isn't by the holy Ghost we are supposed to know the truth of all things? isn't this covered in "all things"? Isn't God's word sharper than a two edged sword and a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" Why doesn't a church leader somewhere receive revelation about this? God, I hope, doesn't have dementia or the inability to communicate properly

[cinepro]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That "someone" having A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him, and C) repeatedly demands that he apologize.

 

The greatest evidence I can see for "dementia" in the interview is that he admits to having molested women, struggling with it for most his life, and counseling with Elder Assay but still getting callings.  He's pretty clear about things having happened.  He doesn't remember some of the details, but he remembers a lot of them!

Certainly, the wise thing to do for someone worried about saving their reputation, Church membership and staying out of jail would have been to end the interview immediately when it became clear who she was and why she was there.  But that doesn't mean the stuff he does admit to isn't reliable.  "There's no way a sane person would actually admit to molesting girls.  Therefore, he must be insane!"

If the Church has taught me two things, it's that peoples' memories tend to get better over time, and that men in their 80's and 90's are good and reliable sources of wisdom and stories about their lives and how we should live ours.  So until the Church comes out and says that we should start to doubt people because of their age and the likelihood of being easily influenced by those around them, I'm going to have to take Brother Bishop at his word.

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When the interviewer has A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him (see p. 27), and C) repeatedly demanded that he apologize, it's not a stretch fo rme to think that he might have felt coerced to respond to leading/accusatory questions in ways that gave her the answers she was so obviously looking for.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems like those facts are irrelevant to many here.  God forbid they have a parent, or they themselves, suffer from dementia to any degree and then have someone treat them in a similar way as this individual did Bishop.  I suspect I could get a person with mild dementia, on medication, soon after a surgery, to admit to murdering babies with pitchforks; however, let a woman accuse a LDS individual who was a leader and all bets are off - the jerk is guilty.  Get the post, light the fire and let him burn.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Isn't by the holy Ghost we are supposed to know the truth of all things? isn't this covered in "all things"?

Not really.  First of all, the allegations under discussion are not within our stewardship.  Second, knowing the truth of "all things" doesn't mean we know everything now.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Isn't God's word sharper than a two edged sword and a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart"  Why doesn't a church leader somewhere receive revelation about this?

Perhaps such revelation has not yet been sought.  Or if it has, it's not something to be held out for public consumption.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

God, I hope, doesn't have dementia or the inability to communicate properly

Sarcasm doesn't help.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Among many similar statement in the interview, when the interviewer asks "Did you molest her?" and he replies "Yes" (on page 34), it's not a stretch for me to think that he might be guilty of what he is admitting to.

"According to the Innocence Project, approximately 25% of convicted criminals ultimately exonerated had, in fact, confessed to the crime."

"A 2010 study from CUNY's John Jay College of Criminal Justice used laboratory experiments that test how the bluff technique correlates with confessions gained from innocent parties. Subjects were instructed to complete a task on a computer, then were falsely accused of a transgression such as crashing the computer or collaborating with a colleague to improve their task performance.^[8] Bluff evidence, false evidence, and unreliable witnesses were used to test their effect. In the first test, 60% of the subjects confessed to the experimenter to pressing a computer key they had been instructed to avoid when, in fact, they had not; an additional 10% admitted to pressing the key to a study observer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

 

[cinepro]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When the interviewer has A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) has reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him (see p. 27), and C) has repeatedly demanded that he apologize, it's not a stretch for me to think that he might have felt pressured/coerced to respond to leading/accusatory questions in ways that gave her the answers she was so obviously looking for.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I don't believe that even under those circumstances anyone would answer the question "Did you molest her?" by saying "yes" if "yes" wasn't the truthful answer.   

There are a million reasons and situations in which a person who is guilty of attempted rape and molestation would lie about it, or refuse to answer such a line of questioning.   If he were totally out of it and just couldn't remember anything, then I could see an argument that she was berating a vegetable who didn't know where he was or what he was saying.  But he clearly remembers many people and situations from decades past, including their names and what happened, and knows there are other situations they aren't referring to.  The interviewer isn't creating false memories and implanting them and reinforcing them.  He is the one introducing new information into the conversation (and is even clear that he doesn't remember the attempted rape described by the interviewer).

I don't know why you've decided this is the prudent issue on which to take up the defense, but keep in mind that this is the start of the process, not the end.  I'm all for not "judging" until the story plays out, but it's not premature to judge him provisionally based on what he admits to.

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who knows?  He was being confronted by his accuser, who was acting under false pretenses.  He was alone.  He may have felt coerced.  He repeatedly mentions his failing memory.  He may have some measure of dementia.  He may have been under the influence of medication. 

So under these circumstances he apologized after being prompted to apologize.  Am I going to lend much significance to such an apology?  No.

Ah.  The ol "I woudn't put it past him" style of accusation.

Again, the man is 85 years old.  He was lured under false pretenses into what he thought was a friendly interview.  His interviewer was also his accuser, though she started out all cheerful and friendly, then switched gears once he was put at ease.  His memory is failing.  He may have some measure of dementia.  He may have been under the influence of medication.  He was alone with this woman, who prompts him to apologize, so he apologizes, who tells him that she had previously threatened to murder him (pp. 27, 43), after which he apologizes again (pp. 38, 65).  Take a look at p. 42:

Does this sound suspect to you at all?  If your child were lured into a private discussion with a stranger, and if that person said something like "I am angry at you, and I have previously thought about murdering you, and I want an apology from you," do you think the child just might . . . apologize?  And might that apology be later seen as . . . coerced?  

So under these circumstances am I going to lend much credence to "admissions" extracted from Bro. Bishop?  No.  It's a muddled mess.

"The interviewer" being the woman who A) had lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him, and C) repeatedly demands that he apologize?

Why should we give any real credence to such "admissions?"

And if the genders were reversed, if "the interviewer" had been a man who who A) had lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old woman with possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded her that he had previously threatened to murder her, and C) repeatedly demands that she apologize, would we seriously be discussing whether her subsequent admissions were inculpatory?

I think . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

How would you view this case if you were representing the woman? We can see how you would represent the accused, and by proxy the church, but how would you view this case if you were hired to represent the woman? Bishop confesses to inappropriate conduct with other women and confuses the accuser with others with whom he had inappropriate contact. Doesn't the above show that maybe Bishop did something with the accuser but that he just can't remember what?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

The greatest evidence I can see for "dementia" in the interview is that he admits to having molested women, struggling with it for most his life, and counseling with Elder Assay but still getting callings.  He's pretty clear about things having happened.  He doesn't remember some of the details, but he remembers a lot of them!

You are assuming his mental competency.  I am not.

I am considering whether his recollections were, to some extent, responsive to questions posed in an accusatory and coercive and threatening environment.  You apparently are not.

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Certainly, the wise thing to do for someone worried about saving their reputation, Church membership and staying out of jail would have been to end the interview immediately when it became clear who she was and why she was there.  But that doesn't mean the stuff he does admit to isn't reliable.  "There's no way a sane person would actually admit to molesting girls.  Therefore, he must be insane!"

Again, the interviewer A) lured a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia into a private, one-on-one conversation under false pretenses, B) repeatedly reminded him that she had previously threatened to murder him (see p. 27), and C) repeatedly demanded that he apologize.

Under such circumstances, mental competency is a real consideration.  Duress/coercion is a real consideration.  Under such circumstances, "the stuff he does admit to" is necessarily suspect.

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

If the Church has taught me two things, it's that peoples' memories tend to get better over time, and that men in their 80's and 90's are good and reliable sources of wisdom and stories about their lives and how we should live ours. 

Ah.  More sarcasm.  You are equating potentially coerced "admissions" from a a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia to . . . voluntary statements given by early members of the Church pertaining to, what, the Gold Plates?

You really have to work hard to weaponize this issue in this way.  Pretty disgusting, but whatever.

-Smac

[cinepro]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"According to the Innocence Project, approximately 25% of convicted criminals ultimately exonerated had, in fact, confessed to the crime."

"A 2010 study from CUNY's John Jay College of Criminal Justice used laboratory experiments that test how the bluff technique correlates with confessions gained from innocent parties. Subjects were instructed to complete a task on a computer, then were falsely accused of a transgression such as crashing the computer or collaborating with a colleague to improve their task performance.^[8] Bluff evidence, false evidence, and unreliable witnesses were used to test their effect. In the first test, 60% of the subjects confessed to the experimenter to pressing a computer key they had been instructed to avoid when, in fact, they had not; an additional 10% admitted to pressing the key to a study observer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

 

The problem for those who would defend Brother Bishop is that he doesn't admit to the attempted-rape that the interviewer describes, but instead he brings up other situations and people that were unknown to the interviewer.

It would be like someone being hauled in and accused for murder and saying "No, I didn't kill that guy, but I did kill this other guy that you don't know about and his body is buried out by the river."  I don't think the Innocence Project would touch that case with a 10 foot pole.  If Brother Bishop denied the rape accusation and then continued to hazily wander as she tried to pin something on him, then there would be a case for "bluff evidence."  But when Brother Bishop is talking about people and situations that the interviewer didn't know about, the chances of a "false confession" are extremely remote.

 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  First of all, the allegations under discussion are not within our stewardship.  Second, knowing the truth of "all things" doesn't mean we know everything now.

Perhaps such revelation has not yet been sought.  Or if it has, it's not something to be held out for public consumption.

Sarcasm doesn't help.

Thanks,

-Smac

If  God cares about about this situation I hope he would give somebody at some point some guidance about it, but reading the Church Statement it doesn't appear that he has or if he has then why the "we don't know" approach? Like take all of the different investigations and say to God, we don't know what to make of this, I assume that God would respond? 

[Nofear]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I don't believe that even under those circumstances anyone would answer the question "Did you molest her?" by saying "yes" if "yes" wasn't the truthful answer.

I'm sure you are familiar with the infamous hot air balloon memories (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196318).

In more popular contemporary parlance, if her accusations are false, this would be a case study in gaslighting.

But, I don't know the truth and so I can't say if it is or not. But, to answer your rhetorical question, yes, yes it is potentially/possibly your lack of imagination. Unfortunately, such imaginations (that you confess lacking) are very much real enough things. The question is whether or not such is applicable here.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

How would you view this case if you were representing the woman?

I would express grave reservations as to quality of the legal case.  I would express empathy and concern for her, but I would also express serious concerns about what she did.

And I have a very hard time developing a set of facts under which I would take this case on.

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

We can see how you would represent the accused, and by proxy the church, but how would you view this case if you were hired to represent the woman?

As the plaintiff?  I would not represent her.  Her case is essentially DOA (statute of limitations), so I think her lawsuit would be a moneygrab, or a proxy attack on the Church.  And her apparent history of sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique (ten other men) would also be a serious issue.  I wouldn't pretend to be able to represent her in such an endeavor.

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

Bishop confesses to inappropriate conduct with other women

Under extraordinarily questionable and unethical circumstances.  Questions about coercion/duress abound.  

In any event, I wouldn't be considering representation of unidentified "other women."  I would be considering representation of this woman and her 33-year old claims of abuse, claims which are almost certainly barred by the statute of limitations.

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

and confuses the accuser with others with whom he had inappropriate contact.

Or . . . not.  He is 85 years old.  Possible dementia.  Possibly medicated.  He was potentially coerced (his interviewer, having lured him into the interview under false pretenses, then proceeded to accuse him, remind him that she had threatened to murder him, and demanded that he apologize).

Under such circumstances, he may have simply told her what he thought she wanted to hear.  Or he was conflating inchoate desires with actual misconduct.  Or he was conflating disparate forms of misconduct (less serious and more serious).  Or he may have admitted to the alleged assault.  

At the end, we really have no way of knowing.  The "interview" and its contents are tainted.  A muddled mess.  Useless.

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

Doesn't the above show that maybe Bishop did something with the accuser but that he just can't remember what?

As an attorney, I couldn't really file a lawsuit based on a 33-year old "something" that the accused cannot remember in any meaningful, admissible-in-court sense, and which may well have been coerced by an as-grinding accuser with a history of using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm sure you are familiar with the infamous hot air balloon memories (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196318).

In more popular contemporary parlance, if her accusations are false, this would be a case study in gaslighting.

But, I don't know the truth and so I can't say if it is or not. But, to answer your rhetorical question, yes, yes it is potentially/possibly your lack of imagination. Unfortunately, such imaginations (that you confess lacking) are very much real enough things. The question is whether or not such is applicable here.

I don't think cinepro is imagining things like some others are.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How would you view this case if you were representing the woman? We can see how you would represent the accused, and by proxy the church, but how would you view this case if you were hired to represent the woman? Bishop confesses to inappropriate conduct with other women and confuses the accuser with others with whom he had inappropriate contact. Doesn't the above show that maybe Bishop did something with the accuser but that he just can't remember what?

I would not take the case on contingency.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  How is a lawsuit, the mere filing of it, "problematic for him?"....

Not the lawsuit, the history that was given to Weber.  That was public knowledge (I assume based on what I know of school histories).  A previous lawsuit would, imo, lead any intelligent, ambitious person to keep track of any future comments the plaintiff said about them so they could nip a potential PR fire in the bud.  He may have felt ignoring her now on record comments was better than drawing attention to them, perhaps it was not publicized at all, but just filed away on a shelf at the library after completion.  Since she names at least one name and provides enough detail for others iirc, if she was lying he could have appealed to these people to challenge her.

Perhaps there are comments in the other parts of the school record.  When I have time I will look for them.

As far as hearsay, the interviewer was obviously aware of some of her accusations so they weren't totally random comments pulled out of the air.  The comments were included in a school history.  How much were accurate and how much were false is unlikely to be learned, though it is possible if this gain legs one might have people popping up contributing their experiences and maybe even some documentation...school paper for example.  It is pretty obscure and not directly tied to the current accusations, so unlikely to draw attention, imo....just establishes imo a potential pattern ( that two accusations exist at all does not mean they are true, but more men appear to me to get through life without being described as having problems with women by independent sources even once, so while proving nothing it is a red flag to me that this pops up in his history).

As far as the MTC I would assume in vetting  Bishop for the calling, they would check anything controversial about him, do a background check on him.  I am thinking of the vetting process my husband has been involved in with hiring professors (he has been on hiring committees).  It sounds from what she said she had discussions with BYU about why she was delaying accepting the post, so she might not even need to be reinterviewed for them to be aware there was conflict going on.  It is an assumption on my part that the office of hiring for BYU would be used or familiar with stuff that goes on at the MTC at the level of hiring for President.  I am basing my assumption on students getting hired through the BYU employment office to work over there back in my day (70s and early 80s).

I do find it problematic if her comments have any validity that someone who keeps a blacklist, etc. would be given a position of power.  I also find BYU hiring Taylor knowing of her complaints of him as helping her credibility as it would be stupid to hire someone they knew was a liar about her bosses.  Otoh, Bishop was called by the MTC so the picture appears (whether it is accurate or not) to be one where they believe enough of the accusations to feel comfortable enough to hire Taylor without worrying she is going to cause problems at BYU as occurred at Weber (the accusation and lawsuit against Bishop).

Btw, I use "if" quite a bit.  It means I am speculating about possibilities, but not drawing any conclusions/judgment as at this point I don't see enough solid material to narrow things down.  I also see it as entirely possible the unnamed accuser chose to target Bishop because she was aware of rumors of a lawsuit back when she was in the MTC and saw that as making him vulnerable to claims of criminal behaviour from the same time period...thus they would not be independent sources of accusations of improper interactions with women (Taylor's having no sexual component, of course).

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I would express grave reservations as to quality of the legal case.  I would express empathy and concern for her, but I would also express serious concerns about what she did.

And I have a very hard time developing a set of facts under which I would take this case on.

As the plaintiff?  I would not represent her.  Her case is essentially DOA (statute of limitations), so I think her lawsuit would be a moneygrab, or a proxy attack on the Church.  And her apparent history of sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique (ten other men) would also be a serious issue.  I wouldn't pretend to be able to represent her in such an endeavor.

Under extraordinarily questionable and unethical circumstances.  Questions about coercion/duress abound.  

In any event, I wouldn't be considering representation of unidentified "other women."  I would be considering representation of this woman and her 33-year old claims of abuse, claims which are almost certainly barred by the statute of limitations.

Or . . . not.  He is 85 years old.  Possible dementia.  Possibly medicated.  He was potentially coerced (his interviewer, having lured him into the interview under false pretenses, then proceeded to accuse him, remind him that she had threatened to murder him, and demanded that he apologize).

Under such circumstances, he may have simply told her what he thought she wanted to hear.  Or he was conflating inchoate desires with actual misconduct.  Or he was conflating disparate forms of misconduct (less serious and more serious).  Or he may have admitted to the alleged assault.  

At the end, we really have no way of knowing.  The "interview" and its contents are tainted.  A muddled mess.  Useless.

As an attorney, I couldn't really file a lawsuit based on a 33-year old "something" that the accused cannot remember in any meaningful, admissible-in-court sense, and which may well have been coerced by an as-grinding accuser with a history of using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique.

Thanks,

-Smac

Assuming the statute of limitations was not an issue, could you bring yourself to view the accuser's side of things or is the dementia possibility argument so powerful that it clouds everything else out in your mind?

[omni]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the man is 85 years old.  He was lured under false pretenses into what he thought was a friendly interview.  His interviewer was also his accuser, though she started out all cheerful and friendly, then switched gears once he was put at ease.  His memory is failing.  He may have some measure of dementia.  He may have been under the influence of medication.  

You keep bringing up the issue with the interview being conducted under false pretenses, but what relevance does this have with whether or not the allegations are true?

We're dealing with a possible federal crime here, should undercover cops be allowed to obtain information under false pretenses? What about whistleblowers?

Additionally you keep bringing up dementia.  While more information may come out in the future, at this point there is no evidence for dementia other than the fact that Bishop is old and occasionally has issues remembering events that occurred 30 years ago.

I find it telling that Bishop's son inferred medication may have played a role in his father's responses, but no mention of dementia.  Also, didn't Bishop mention he was getting married in a few weeks?

We can't say for certain whether the allegations are true, but it appears from the details the interviewer was able to provide (hot tubbing incident, dinners with his wife, the other sister missionary "molestation", etc.) that something inappropriate likely occurred.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would not take the case on contingency.

It is clear that her legal rights no longer exist in this case.  So, my point was that Smac97 is acting like a defense lawyer for the accused and the church and so assuming that there is no statute of limitations, how would he or you represent the woman?  Obviously, my point is that I think who Bishop is and what organization he belongs to is clouding the issue.  This guy confessed to molestation of someone and confused the subject accuser with other women with whom he committed bad acts.  Also, it would seem that politeness would leave someone wrongfully accused well before 2 1/2 hrs lapsed.  Bishop stayed and kept on apologizing because he knew he did something inappropriate.  Or perhaps he does suffer from dementia at selective times and is lucid at other times?  My guess is that the dementia surfaces around the times when Bishop allegedly confesses to inappropriate actions that obviously he could not commit, given his church callings, etc.?

[Danzo]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Among many similar statement in the interview, when the interviewer asks "Did you molest her?" and he replies "Yes" (on page 34), it's not a stretch for me to think that he might be guilty of what he is admitting to.

Ya'll Remind me of an experience related to me by a friend. He served in Iraq after the war training police officers.

According to him, the hardest thing to teach was how to gather evidence and preserve it for a trial.  The Police officers in Iraq just seemed to think it was much easier getting a confession than to go through all that work trying to prove things.

Confessions are easy to get if you know how to get them.  Especially if (as been alleged) the person getting them has experience doing it with other people.

[Nofear]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem for those who would defend Brother Bishop is that he doesn't admit to the attempted-rape that the interviewer describes, but instead he brings up other situations and people that were unknown to the interviewer.

It would be like someone being hauled in and accused for murder and saying "No, I didn't kill that guy, but I did kill this other guy that you don't know about and his body is buried out by the river."  I don't think the Innocence Project would touch that case with a 10 foot pole.  If Brother Bishop denied the rape accusation and then continued to hazily wander as she tried to pin something on him, then there would be a case for "bluff evidence."  But when Brother Bishop is talking about people and situations that the interviewer didn't know about, the chances of a "false confession" are extremely remote.

 

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think cinepro is imagining things like some others are.

The problem cinepro describes of Brother Bishop describing other events and not admitting to the attempted rape being a marker of guilt is that the behavior would also be quite consistent with a individual not being able to remember being in the balloon, as it were, even though his supposed balloon trip is clearly described to him. Some have tried to paint this befuddled response as being a possibility owing to age. The truth is most adults would be prone to such an attempt to gaslight irrespective of age.

But, maybe, he's just being dodgy from guilt. Maybe not. I don't know.