Jump to content
sunstoned

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

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Bishop did not forget his name.  You should listen to the recording.

From the transcript:

Quote

Interviewer: Two and a half, two and a half, okay. So, Joseph L. Bishop, what's your middle name?
JB: Layton. L-a-y-t-o-n.
Interviewer: Like Layton, Utah?
JB: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Interviewer: Did you grow up there?
JB: No.
Interviewer: Why Layton?
JB: My father was Joseph Layton, I'm Joseph Layton Jr.
Interviewer: Nice.  How'd you get Bishop?
JB: Bishop.

The interviewer thought he had forgotten his last name, as she prompted him ("How'd you get Bishop {as your last name}?").

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And it was also clarified in the course of the recording that the storage room was not really in a "basement".

Again from the transcript:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: … you helped me understand that it wasn’t my fault, which was really amazing. But you also kind of groomed me, a little bit, and you took me down into the basement, it wasn’t really a basement, but it was downstairs, a little storage room.
BISHOP: Mm-hmm.
INTERVIEWER: I’m not angry with you, because I think …
BISHOP: You ought to be …
INTERVIEWER: Well maybe, but I’m not. I’m over a lot of things that have happened to me. But you hurt me. And I need an apology.
BISHOP: Well I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can’t remember what it was but I’m …
INTERVIEWER: Okay, let’s go back a little bit, and I’ll tell you, because …

That's from page 26.  From page 27:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: You took me down, you don't remember taking a sister missionary downstairs into the basement? Okay, let me say this. I made all this t ime and you know from a long t ime ago, 33 years ago was a long t ime. I need an apology, and I need an admission, and I need to know what was ever done if anything, because I have carried this and it has destroyed my life. So do you remember the room in the basement?
JB: I do.
INTERVIEWER: Do you remember the movies in the basement? The DVD, the VHS player and the TV? No. Do you remember tearing my blouse, pulling up my skirt, ripping the back of my skirt and trying to rape me? But you didn't, because you didn't have a full erection. You don't remember that?
JB: No. Let me tell you what I do remember.

And from page 37:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: Yes, about you. I wanted to know what happened. Did he admit it? Was he sorry? Did he deny it? Did he call me a liar? Yeah, absolutely. And this last year I contacted my stake president where I live in {_________} and he said, he cried, he said you know what that should have never happened, let me find out. It 's been a year. Nothing. So here I am because I want an apology and I appreciate your honesty, except I find it very odd that you remember details about everything except the basement from what you did to me there.
JB: What I remember about the basement was different.
INTERVIEWER: Oh?
JB: Uh-huh. You had had an operation, a breast enhancement.
INTERVIEWER: No. (laughs) No. I had no boobs at 21 years old.
JB: Well you'd talked about it because you had no boobs at 21 I'd thought you had a new ...
INTERVIEWER: Why would I have, why would we talk about having a boob job at 21 and you thinking I'd had a boob job when I had no breasts whatsoever?
JB: I, yeah.
INTERVIEWER: I wore a padded bra, so I think your, I think your understanding was skewed.
JB: Anyway, that's what I remember about ...
JB: That's what I remember about ... honestly.

And from page 63:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: Taking a missionary down into the basement, to the storage room, is not normal. Trying to rape a missionary is not normal.

So she calls it a basement.  Repeatedly.  But is there significance to this?

Also, I think the "confession" on page 37 is odd.  He claims that she had had a breast enhancement surgery prior to going into the MTC, but she says she "had no breasts whatsoever" while at the MTC, and that JB's "understanding was skewed" regarding his recollection.  Elsewhere he notes his memory is slipping.  From page 25:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: Well one thing I learned is that people when they have some kind of an addiction, like my step-father was violently sexually abusive. And you and I talked about that at MTC. And ...
JB: We did?
INTERVIEWER: Yes we did, yeah.
JB: There's my bad memory again.
INTERVIEWER: There's your bad memory, anyway, yeah you helped me understand that it wasn't my fault, which was really amazing. But you also kind of groomed me, a little bit, and you took me down into the basement, it wasn't really a basement, but it was downstairs, a little storage room.
JB: Mm-hmm.
INTERVIEWER: I'm not angry with you, because I think ...
JB: You ought to be ...
INTERVIEWER: Well maybe, but I'm not. I'm over a lot of things that have happened to me. But you hurt me. And I need an apology.
JB: Well I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can't remember what it was but I'm ...

What are your thoughts here?  It seems like a lot of leading questions.  A lot of prompts.  From an ax-grinding interviewer to a frail old man recoverying from heart surgery who has to be prompted to give his last name, who repeatedly references his poor memory, who significantly misremembers the incident (he remembers her having a breast enhancement, whereas she "had no breasts whatsoever"), who doesn't recall talking to the woman while at the MTC ("And you and I talked about that at {the} MTC" / "We did?" / "Yes we did, yeah." / "There's my bad memory again." / "There's your bad memory, anyway..."), who apologizes after being prompted to do so ("But you hurt me.  And I need an apology." / "Well, I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can't remember...").

Again if this situation involved a middle-aged man using false pretenses to lure an 85-year old woman with dementia and recovering from heart surgery into a private (and secretly recorded) interview for the purpose of extracting answers that the interviewer wants to hear, I think this thread would be very different in tone.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I still don't get it.  What "policies and procedures" do you have in mind?

And why are you referring to "policies and procedures" that you agree will be ignored by "a determined predator?"

Say that the Church implements some changes (windows in bishops' office doors, security cameras in bishops' offices, bishops being chaperoned by someone else in the room, etc.), my thought is . . . so what?  "A determined predator" will likely just circumvent these "policies and procedures."  We agree on this, so what is your point?

I am asking this sincerely, not to be combative.  I want to understand your position.

Nope.  I've read through much (but not all) of the transcript.

I agree with you that the transcript doesn't given the whole story.  But then, neither does an audio recording. 

Thanks,

-Smac

One on one interviews in which sexual topics are discussed.

The audio adds a significant element that isn't present in the transcript.  You ought to listen before drawing too many conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An apology is sometimes more about attempts at reconciliation than about allocation of fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're comparing an apology given to relieve the awkwardness or offense in a social interaction (something we have all done) to an apology given after an accusation of rape (probably something none of us have done).

Not sure you want to stick with that analogy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, omni said:
Quote

An apology is sometimes more about attempts at reconciliation than about allocation of fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're comparing an apology given to relieve the awkwardness or offense in a social interaction (something we have all done) to an apology given after an accusation of rape (probably something none of us have done).

Not sure you want to stick with that analogy.

Bro. Bishop was prompted to given an apology to someone to someone who said he had assaulted her.  He does not recall the incident, but apologizes anyway.  

I think his apology was intended principally as an attempt to mollify her.  To seek reconciliation.  An apology as an admission of guilt seems odd, since he does not recall what he is being accused of (and even significantly misremembers it).

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the transcript:

The interviewer thought he had forgotten his last name, as she prompted him ("How'd you get Bishop {as your last name}?").

Again from the transcript:

That's from page 26.  From page 27:

And from page 37:

And from page 63:

So she calls it a basement.  Repeatedly.  But is there significance to this?

Also, I think the "confession" on page 37 is odd.  He claims that she had had a breast enhancement surgery prior to going into the MTC, but she says she "had no breasts whatsoever" while at the MTC, and that JB's "understanding was skewed" regarding his recollection.  Elsewhere he notes his memory is slipping.  From page 25:

What are your thoughts here?  It seems like a lot of leading questions.  A lot of prompts.  From an ax-grinding interviewer to a frail old man recoverying from heart surgery who has to be prompted to give his last name, who repeatedly references his poor memory, who significantly misremembers the incident (he remembers her having a breast enhancement, whereas she "had no breasts whatsoever"), who doesn't recall talking to the woman while at the MTC ("And you and I talked about that at {the} MTC" / "We did?" / "Yes we did, yeah." / "There's my bad memory again." / "There's your bad memory, anyway..."), who apologizes after being prompted to do so ("But you hurt me.  And I need an apology." / "Well, I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can't remember...").

Again if this situation involved a middle-aged man using false pretenses to lure an 85-year old woman with dementia and recovering from heart surgery into a private (and secretly recorded) interview for the purpose of extracting answers that the interviewer wants to hear, I think this thread would be very different in tone.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Listen to the audio... the name discussion was odd (mostly on her part) but he did not forget his name.  And she didn't think that he forgot his name.  More likely she got confused and thought that Layton was his last name.

Yes, she refers to it as a basement storage room but, as you also quoted, she clarifies at one point that it wasn't actually a basement.

Her interview was horrible.  There's no doubt.  And I've mentioned before that I question her mental well being.  Perhaps his is also in question.  I also know that I sat and listened to him for well over an hour as he repeatedly admitted to being unable to control his sex addiction.

Ultimately, I don't know what to believe but I'm not willing to throw the alleged victim under the bus.  To me, that just perpetuates a problem that we, as a church, need to address.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

We need to keep in mind Bishop's age here, he is, after all,  just a few months shy of 86.

 

 

And, what, 5 years younger than our prophet when he implemented the exclusionary policy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I prefer reading to listening because I can easily reread for correct understanding and quickly make jumps back and forth to compare statements. I don’t have time to do both. I can better focus on both their statements by reading and reading them. Listening doesn’t facilitate that level of scrutiny.

I also prefer reading.  But in this case, I think of lot of information is lost in just reading it.  There is a lot of emotion and inflection that is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post

"Bishop adamantly denied the allegations through his son, Gregory Bishop, who questioned the woman's credibility, saying she has accused 10 other men of sexual assault, sexual harassment or assault without charges being filed and has sought cash settlements in other cases. In 2010, she threatened to kill Bishop, according to police records and her own statements."

 

"The church first investigated the allegations in 2010, when the woman, who by then had left the church, told local church leaders in Pleasant Grove about the alleged incident and allegedly threatened to shoot Bishop. They reported the allegations to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, Hawkins said. The police report corroborates Hawkins' statement.

"Contact was made with the suspect who recited a different version of the story," the police report states. "No further action was taken."

 

"Greg Bishop dismissed the apparent admissions. He said his father had just been released from the hospital after treatment for a heart attack and was under medication when the woman traveled to Arizona to meet him, ostensibly for an article on mission presidents."

 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013479/woman-levels-accusations-against-former-mtc-president.html

Edited by ksfisher

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Bro. Bishop was prompted to given an apology to someone to someone who said he had assaulted her.  He does not recall the incident, but apologizes anyway.  

I think his apology was intended principally as an attempt to mollify her.  To seek reconciliation.  An apology as an admission of guilt seems odd, since he does not recall what he is being accused of (and even significantly misremembers it).

Thanks,

-Smac

My take is that he maybe doesn't remember her incident specifically but knows he did some inappropriate things with many women and that the woman before him was probably one of those women.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he did everything she claimed but that he may have been inappropriate with her as he was with others.  So, he was apologizing for something he probably did. He was confused as to which one she was in the recording, thinking that she might have been the one who knew some bikers or might have been the one who had augmentation surgery.  Nevertheless, it seems like he did something inappropriate with her.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Duncan said:

Wasn't there a movie with Mr. Mel Gibson, who played a conspiracy theorist and had all these zany ideas but the movie is about one of them that actually was true? This whole ordeal sounds like that

Iirc, Patrick Stewart was a bad guy and they actually made him crazy to discredit him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One on one interviews in which sexual topics are discussed.

"Sexual topics" are, in my experience, addressed in a very roundabout, respectful, tactful way.  None of the lurid creepiness that is so often implied as taking place.

If a person confesses some sort of sexual transgression, there is usually some sort of very basic inquiry as to the nature of the misconduct, but nothing voyeuristic.  

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The audio adds a significant element that isn't present in the transcript.  You ought to listen before drawing too many conclusions.

A video recording would also add "a significant element."

Whether Bro. Bishop has some sort of dementia would also add "a significant element."

Whether Bro. Bishop was under the influence of medication would also add "a significant element."

Where the interview took place, and whether Bro. Bishop felt at liberty to discontinue the interview or leave, would also add "a significant element."

How many times the interviewer has made sex assault allegations against other men would also add "a significant element."

How many times the interviewer has used sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique would also add "a significant element."

The extent and type of the interviewer's criminal history would also add "a significant element."

The interviewer's mental health status relative to freely admitting to having threatened murder would also add "a significant element."

There are all sorts of "significant elements" missing from the body of evidence before us.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Listen to the audio... the name discussion was odd (mostly on her part) but he did not forget his name.  And she didn't think that he forgot his name.  More likely she got confused and thought that Layton was his last name.

Yes, she refers to it as a basement storage room but, as you also quoted, she clarifies at one point that it wasn't actually a basement.

Her interview was horrible.  There's no doubt.  And I've mentioned before that I question her mental well being.  Perhaps his is also in question.  I also know that I sat and listened to him for well over an hour as he repeatedly admitted to being unable to control his sex addiction.

Ultimately, I don't know what to believe but I'm not willing to throw the alleged victim under the bus.  To me, that just perpetuates a problem that we, as a church, need to address.

 

I think she pretended to not know him very well and that's why it came off as a horrible interview. She pretended to try and get the name right, she knows his name very well! She was not a good actor, and when she tells him who she really is, she becomes a different person. Of course she does have some bi polar tendencies in the conversation. Even after she exposes her true self she is really nice and then boom it's like she remembers who she's talking to and the f-bomb comes out. But who wouldn't act that way especially after she'd been abused sexually by a step parent/man...don't want to call him a dad. 

And this Joe Bishop guy....I went to his FB page and it shows him with his sons. How awful to have your dad on front page news so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Sexual topics" are, in my experience, addressed in a very roundabout, respectful, tactful way.  None of the lurid creepiness that is so often implied as taking place.

If a person confesses some sort of sexual transgression, there is usually some sort of very basic inquiry as to the nature of the misconduct, but nothing voyeuristic.  

 

Yes, that's the expectation and likely the norm.  It is when the interviews depart from that norm that we have problems.  And it happens -- too often.

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

There are all sorts of "significant elements" missing from the body of evidence before us.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, there are significant elements are missing from the body of evidence before us.  The audio is NOT missing.  It's available to you.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think she pretended to not know him very well and that's why it came off as a horrible interview. She pretended to try and get the name right, she knows his name very well! She was not a good actor, and when she tells him who she really is, she becomes a different person. Of course she does have some bi polar tendencies in the conversation. Even after she exposes her true self she is really nice and then boom it's like she remembers who she's talking to and the f-bomb comes out. But who wouldn't act that way especially after she'd been abused sexually by a step parent/man...don't want to call him a dad. 

And this Joe Bishop guy....I went to his FB page and it shows him with his sons. How awful to have your dad on front page news so to speak. 

Additionally, I cannot imagine how nervous she must have been.  All the preparation in the world can't really help you when you are facing someone you believe is your attempted rapist.

Yes... She did seem to have some concern over what this might do to his kids and grandkids.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bro. Bishop was prompted to given an apology to someone to someone who said he had assaulted her.  He does not recall the incident, but apologizes anyway.  

I think his apology was intended principally as an attempt to mollify her.  To seek reconciliation.  An apology as an admission of guilt seems odd, since he does not recall what he is being accused of (and even significantly misremembers it).

Thanks,

-Smac

So why does he repeatedly apologize for such a serious accusation?  

I realize he may not remember the alleged rape attempt, but it appears he feels he was capable of such actions based on other sexual indiscretions he's committed.

In fact he admits as much when the interviewer asks him if this sounds like something he was capable of doing and he responds affirmatively (I forget the exact wording and don't have the transcript in front of me).   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, what, 5 years younger than our prophet when he implemented the exclusionary policy.

Maybe you missed the oblique reference I was using for Bishop's birthday to try and make him look older than he actually was.

 

"a few months "

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listening though, does facilitate a huge level of scrutiny. It explains so much, it explains a pause here and there and you hear expressions. So much that those who don't listen will miss. And when I read it on the transcript, sure it seems like he might have dementia occasionally, until I listen. He talks better than most in fact.

I agree with this.  Listening to the audio versus reading the transcript are very different experiences.  Much nuance is lost in the transcription.  I would recommend listening to the audio and maybe follow along with the transcription.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Listen to the audio... the name discussion was odd (mostly on her part) but he did not forget his name.  And she didn't think that he forgot his name.  More likely she got confused and thought that Layton was his last name.

She was confused about his last name?  The former MTC president?  The former president of Weber State University?  Her alleged rapist?  She forgot his name?

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, she refers to it as a basement storage room but, as you also quoted, she clarifies at one point that it wasn't actually a basement.

What is the significance of this, then?  

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Her interview was horrible.  There's no doubt.  And I've mentioned before that I question her mental well being.  Perhaps his is also in question.  I also know that I sat and listened to him for well over an hour as he repeatedly admitted to being unable to control his sex addiction.

So we're speaking of "admissions" of a person

  • A) who was 85 years old,
  • B) who was lured into an interview under false pretenses,
  • C) who was alone with his accuser, and may well have been subject to some level of coercion;
  • C) who was subjected to "horrible" questions and accusations from an ax-grincing accuser with severe credibility issues, including leading questions and requests/demands that he apologize,
  • D) who repeatedly professes a poor memory,
  • E) who may have some form of dementia, and
  • F) who may have been under the influence of medication.

You want to lend significant probative weight to "admissions" made under these circumstances?  Really?

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ultimately, I don't know what to believe but I'm not willing to throw the alleged victim under the bus. 

"Under the bus" = "Give unquestioning and reflexive credence to whatever she has to say, regardless of her criminal history, her penchant for using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique, etc."?

I don't want to throw her under the bus, either.  She clearly needs help.  This is particularly so if, as it seems, she did not publicize the recording/transcript (or MormonLeaks published it without her consent).

But giving her help is a far cry from uncritical and take-it-at-face-value acceptance of "admissions" extracted from a sick 85-year old man with a failing memory and possibly some dementia, and possibly influenced by medication.

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To me, that just perpetuates a problem that we, as a church, need to address.

I don't what what you mean by "throw under the bus."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think she is in error here.  The statute of limitations is four years.  The the alleged crime took place in 1984.  There is an "equitable tolling" provision that can apply in some circumstances where the existence of the crime is not discovered until much later.  For example: a woman is drugged and sexually assaulted, wakes up with no particular recollection of the event, but then finds out five years later that the perp recorded the assault and has it on DVD and has shown it to a mutual acquaintance.  

However, the woman here claims that she was fully aware of the alleged assault, so the four-year limit would seem to be firm.  (I am not a criminal defense lawyer, though, so I am open to correction on this point.)

The woman does indeed repeatedly claim that the limitations period has not run, and also that she has been told by the police that it has not run, and also that her "attorneys" have said tshe could bring a civil suit (as late as 2017).  I find these claims quite suspect.  As an attorney who works exclusively in civil litigation in Utah, the 33-year gap between the alleged assault and filing suit would be hugely problematic.  I can barely envision taking this case at all, let alone giving the prospective client assurances that a civil lawsuit on a 33-year old claim is a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps, and hypothetically speaking, an attorney moght think go after the “employer” rather than the individual similar too decades old accusations regarding sexual abuse by scoutmasters or similar types cases where the conduct alleged was decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post

This article is interesting

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

"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"

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe you missed the oblique reference I was using for Bishop's birthday to try and make him look older than he actually was.

 

"a few months "

No... I got it. It was funny.

 

I just also thought it relevant to point out that he's younger than our current and previous prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She was confused about his last name?  The former MTC president?  The former president of Weber State University?  Her alleged rapist?  She forgot his name?

What is the significance of this, then?  

So we're speaking of "admissions" of a person

  • A) who was 85 years old,
  • B) who was lured into an interview under false pretenses,
  • C) who was alone with his accuser, and may well have been subject to some level of coercion;
  • C) who was subjected to "horrible" questions and accusations from an ax-grincing accuser with severe credibility issues, including leading questions and requests/demands that he apologize,
  • D) who repeatedly professes a poor memory,
  • E) who may have some form of dementia, and
  • F) who may have been under the influence of medication.

You want to lend significant probative weight to "admissions" made under these circumstances?  Really?

"Under the bus" = "Give unquestioning and reflexive credence to whatever she has to say, regardless of her criminal history, her penchant for using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique, etc."?

I don't want to throw her under the bus, either.  She clearly needs help.  This is particularly so if, as it seems, she did not publicize the recording/transcript (or MormonLeaks published it without her consent).

But giving her help is a far cry from uncritical and take-it-at-face-value acceptance of "admissions" extracted from a sick 85-year old man with a failing memory and possibly some dementia, and possibly influenced by medication.

I don't what what you mean by "throw under the bus."

Thanks,

-Smac

1.  If you want to understand the "name" dialogue, listen to the audio.  There is no indication that Bishop forgot his name.

2.  No, I don't lend "significant probative weight" to Bishops admissions.  But I did listen to him and his words before drawing conclusions.

3.  I am not aware of anything that was keeping him in the room.  As far as I can tell from the recording, he chose to stay of his own free will even after all pretenses had been dropped.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, omni said:

So why does he repeatedly apologize for such a serious accusation?  

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.

4 minutes ago, omni said:

I realize he may not remember the alleged rape attempt, but it appears he feels he was capable of such actions based on other sexual indiscretions he's committed.

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:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: You ... with your addiction, a predator. You were a predator. You preyed on vulnerable women, broken women, who you thought were not strong, and could not -- you told me that no one would believe me.
JB: I did?
INTERVIEWER: Yes you did.
JB: I apologize for that.

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.

4 minutes ago, omni said:

In fact he admits as much when the interviewer asks him if this sounds like something he was capable of doing and he responds affirmatively (I forget the exact wording and don't have the transcript in front of me).   

"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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×