Jump to content
JulieM

Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn't more precise to say it is true someone who claims to have access to BYU Police reports has said Denson claims this?

Yes.  We have an anonymous person who claims to have received thy BYU police report from a "mole" in the BYU Police Department, and this anonymous person is making representations about redacted content in the police report.

Hearsay within hearsay.  Anonymous online sources.  Not the best evidence in the world.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Has BYU Police or someone else with known access verified the claim?  Is there a photo of the unredacted report available or just a report from an unidentified mole?

Not that I've seen.  But if there is a "mole" in the BYU Police who is leaking sensitive information (Consig claims that he now knows the identity of the "second victim"), then that's not a good thing.

Jana Riess screwed up by disclosing McKenna Denson's identity online before Denson came forward and identified herself (though this is largely the fault of Denson, I think).  Now the identity of the second victim is at risk of being publicly disclosed.  Not cool.

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:
Quote

"It is true" that she claims to have met with Thomas S. Monson, yes.

But there is no evidence that she disclosed any allegations of abuse to him, and rather substantial evidence that she did not.

Do you think her meeting with Elder Monson is significant?  If so, in what way?

Thanks,

-Smac

Whatever...she met with him..

Well, perhaps.  

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That is all I know. 

Well, we don't really "know" this.  We have hearsay within hearsay.  Anonymous sources.  Unvetted claims.

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Your conclusions are yours..I don't have any.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure that anyone can draw any definite conclusions regarding this as of yet.  I know that I'll need more information before I can.

I think we can conclude that . . . this development doesn't mean much.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure that anyone can draw any definite conclusions regarding this as of yet.  I know that I'll need more information before I can.

I want more clarification.  I think it will come but I don't want to jump the gun on anything right now.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can conclude that . . . this development doesn't mean much.

Thanks,

-Smac

How can you conclude anything yet?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Jana Riess screwed up by disclosing McKenna Denson's identity online before Denson came forward and identified herself (though this is largely the fault of Denson, I think).  Now the identity of the second victim is at risk of being publicly disclosed.  Not cool.

-Smac

I agree.  Even if his mole was immoral enough to pass on the name of the second victim, consig should have refrained from bragging that he knew it.  What value to the discussion save to boost his own ego does that info have?  Instead of respecting her choice of privacy, the two of them (assuming the info is accurate) are dragging her into public view again, increasing the chance her name gets leaked.  The mole has shown a willingness to share the name according to consig's report; if others know who the mole is, they may now pressure them to share the info where they might not have if consig had refrained from showing he had it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

I agree.  Even if his mole was immoral enough to pass on the name of the second victim, consig should have refrained from bragging that he knew it.  What value to the discussion save to boost his own ego does that info have?  Instead of respecting her choice of privacy, the two of them (assuming the info is accurate) are dragging her into public view again, increasing the chance her name gets leaked.  The mole has shown a willingness to share the name according to consig's report; if others know who the mole is, they may now pressure them to share the info where they might not have if consig had refrained from showing he had it.

It is kind of scary when you get info outside the church...surely it is his ego.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is kind of scary when you get info outside the church...surely it is his ego.

Explain to me what purpose is served by him saying "I know the name of the second victim, but am not sharing it"***** We already knew there was a second victim, which was a very important verification of part of Denson's claims.

Now the woman gets to worry that more people know about her, including at least one (the mole) who doesn't respect her right to privacy.

Considering I have taken the time to compare the transcript to the audio tape, have looked for dozens of news account on google that might have a tidbit of info, went through much of the press conference...for you btw...it seems really strange that you threw out this comment in response to my post.  

What among my comments has ever indicated I am scared at getting info from nonchurch sources?  What among my comments indicates this is anything for me besides a victim's right to privacy if she chooses it?

****add-on:  if he had said something along the lines of 'I condemn any sharing without personal permission of the names of known victims and alleged victims and I have told my mole they were wrong to do so, and I am only sharing this info to encourage anyone else inclined to leak info to refrain from doing so', that I can see a purpose in. Simply saying 'I know the victim's name, but I am not telling' encourages leaking of victims' names imo and serves no purpose I can see besides inflating his 'credentials' as someone with inside knowledge.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can conclude that . . . this development doesn't mean much.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, you may conclude that (and some will agree),  But, not everyone will feel that it "doesn't mean much".  I guess we will just have to wait and see since we really have no idea how this may be used or if it will be a part of the case at all.  We also don't know if any case will even be filed or if it will be settled out of court....and so on....

Too many unknowns at this point to conclude this "doesn't mean much", IMO.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Explain to me what purpose is served by him saying "I know the name of the second victim, but am not sharing it"?  We already knew there was a second victim, which was a very important verification of part of Denson's claims.

I also thought we already knew the 2nd victim's name (or am I remembering wrong).  At least her surname?

I'm seeing that there has also been more info released (unofficially) that was redacted.  I'm reading through it now.  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jeanne said:

How can you conclude anything yet?

I'm giving Consig the benefit of the doubt.  I don't see much reason to be skeptical about the information he is providing because . . . the information is inert.  It's not really probative of anything, nor is it harmful or helpful to anyone.  It's just . . . there.

Consig has no apparent reason to lie or misrepresent.  The information he is presenting is just a factoid, nothing more.  That's my conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.  Even if his mole was immoral enough to pass on the name of the second victim, consig should have refrained from bragging that he knew it.  

Yep.  I also wonder if a crime has been committed here.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

What value to the discussion save to boost his own ego does that info have?  Instead of respecting her choice of privacy, the two of them (assuming the info is accurate) are dragging her into public view again, increasing the chance her name gets leaked.  

Yep.  Ego.  And animus.  That's about all.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The mole has shown a willingness to share the name according to consig's report; if others know who the mole is, they may now pressure them to share the info where they might not have if consig had refrained from showing he had it.

"The mole" may end up in serious trouble if the BYU Police find out about this (as I imagine they will).

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also thought we already knew the 2nd victim's name (or am I remembering wrong).  At least her surname?

I'm seeing that there has also been more info released (unofficially) that was redacted.  I'm reading through it now.  

I have never seen the second victim's name.  I started using "Green" for it as that was the color of the 'blackout' used to redact her name in the transcript.  That may be what you are thinking of.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, you may conclude that (and some will agree), 

I was using the royal "we."  :P

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, not everyone will feel that it "doesn't mean much". 

Okay, I'll bite.  What do you think it could potentially "mean?"

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I guess we will just have to wait and see since we really have no idea how this may be used or if it will be a part of the case at all. 

As an attorney, I can often conceptualize a situation where information might be useful in litigation.  The information here . . . nope, not seeing it as being useful at all.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We also don't know if any case will even be filed

Yes, we know the case has been filed.  Case No. 2:18-cv-00284 in the U.S. District Court in Utah.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

or if it will be settled out of court....and so on....

Litigation strategies . . . yes, we don't know how those things will play out.  Lots of variables.

But as far as Sis. Denson's claim that she met with Elder Monson as part of returning to complete her mission . . . nope, I'm not seeing any relevance to the allegations pending in the lawsuit.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Too many unknowns at this point to conclude this "doesn't mean much", IMO.

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I'll bite.  What do you think it could potentially "mean?"

I have no idea.  We really just have such little information on this so far and we also have no idea what Denson discussed with Elder Monson.  I'm just saying that it's too early to draw a definite conclusion that it "doesn't mean much" or that it's not "useful at all" to the case.

(And thanks for the additional info on the case in the rest of your post!).

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have never seen the second victim's name.  I started using "Green" for it as that was the color of the 'blackout' used to redact her name in the transcript.  That may be what you are thinking of.

Yes, it is :)

Thanks.  I didn't know it was a name you'd assigned.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"The mole" may end up in serious trouble if the BYU Police find out about this (as I imagine they will).

And they should, imo.

Denson's team had the info about her draft or should have from her.  There was no need for her for it to have been released and it may possibly hurt her case as it shows, imo, a sensible procedure that would have been problematic imo if skipped given the extreme of her known case at the time (minimum she claimed an attempt of rape in DC, don't know if she then shared it was because she was embarrassed about having an anxiety attack).

As far as the information about then Elder Monson in and of itself, I am iffy about it being leaked.  I realize this adds to the 'where was the Spirit' discussion, but I don't see much difference there (if you expect leaders to have that level of discernment, it should be there as much for those who called Bishop as those who talked to Denson it would seem) though I realize some will attach greater significance since Elder Monson became Pres. Monson.  However, it also shows there were useful procedures in place where Denson had an opportunity to share (understandably didn't according to her own words elsewhere).  I do think this is important info to show procedures said to be in place back then were used and not skipped.

However, the name of the second victim has no impact on any awareness of procedures or actions taken.  Her existence has been verified.  There is no need for her name to be out there unless she desires to make a public statement.

For leaking the personal information of a sexual assault victim, I believe the mole should be fired.

Are those who were demanding discipline of the police officer who shared the alleged (I personally think she was likely raped, but iirc the verdict was not guilty so I am being precise) sexual assault victim's report with the Honor Code office equally upset that the name of this victim has been leaked?  I think he should have been fired myself.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it is :)

Thanks.  I didn't know it was a name you'd assigned.

I think I mentioned it in one post at least, but I assumed everyone knew we didn't know.  I probably should have been more careful.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I'm not seeing any relevance to the allegations pending in the lawsuit.

Beliefs that spiritual leaders should be able to essentially read the minds of those they are talking to*** are not relevant to legal liability, I am guessing, even if it is problematic for others.

****I know that is not what is being claimed, but that is what it amounts to.  And this is a reasonable position based on some of the ways discernment has been discussed among members, imo, though I believe that it is wrong.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

Okay, I'll bite.  What do you think it could potentially "mean?"

I have no idea.  We really just have such little information on this so far and we also have no idea what Denson discussed with Elder Monson. 

Well, I think we know that McKenna Denson did not discuss any allegations of sexual abuse by Joseph Bishop.  We have a source that states that she did not disclose the purported abuse until years later.

That source is . . . McKenna Denson.  Part of her narrative is that she first disclosed the purported abuse to her YSA ward bishop after she returned from her mission.

Moreover, if she had disclosed to Elder Monson that she had been sexually traumatized while at the MTC, it would be quite strange to have her returned to the rigors of missionary work, and stranger still that Ms. Denson has not said anything about this.  Why would she and her attorneys leave such a salacious detail out of her trial-by-media-circus efforts, particularly since it ostensibly feeds perfectly into the the-LDS-Church-protects-predators-and-ignores-victims narrative they are trying to create?

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm just saying that it's too early to draw a definite conclusion that it "doesn't mean much" or that it's not "useful at all" to the case.

A "definite" conclusion?  Okay.  But a preliminary conclusion is, I think, fine.

Nobody here can even conceptualize a way this information might be relevant.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

(And thanks for the additional info on the case in the rest of your post!).

Sure!

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Explain to me what purpose is served by him saying "I know the name of the second victim, but am not sharing it"?  We already knew there was a second victim, which was a very important verification of part of Denson's claims.

Now the woman gets to worry that more people know about her, including at least one (the mole) who doesn't respect her right to privacy.

Considering I have taken the time to compare the transcript to the audio tape, have looked for dozens of news account on google that might have a tidbit of info, went through much of the press conference...for you btw...it seems really strange that you threw out this comment in response to my post.  

What among my comments has ever indicated I am scared at getting info from nonchurch sources?  What among my comments indicates this is anything for me besides a victim's right to privacy if she chooses it?

I agree with you Calm. Ego or not...the facts are needed for correct conclusions.  Consig strives for accuracy..we need that.  I don't think YOU are scared..you are more observant and secure in your own knowledge.  You have answers ready for whatever the conclusion will be.

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  I redact documents all the time as part of my practice as an attorney, usually business records and the like which I am sending to opposing counsel.  I generally err on the side of caution (that is, if I am unsure if something should be redacted, I redact it, since I can always reverse a decision to redact, but I cannot reverse a decision to not redact).  On occasion this has triggered some suspicion from the other side, at which point we discuss that between the parties, and then I re-assess whether to disclose the redacted material.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, pretty much, you send them out looking like this?

Aclu-v-ashcroft-redacted.jpg

 

ETA: That was a joke.

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm giving Consig the benefit of the doubt.  I don't see much reason to be skeptical about the information he is providing because . . . the information is inert.  It's not really probative of anything, nor is it harmful or helpful to anyone.  It's just . . . there.

Consig has no apparent reason to lie or misrepresent.  The information he is presenting is just a factoid, nothing more.  That's my conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I like Consig..actually he is to me anyway an honest man and very knowledgeable.  He seeks truth and so like you, I feel he has no reason to misrepresent.  He is full of facts...and conclusions can't be made without them.  If ego is any where represented..it is because we need the facts.  Facts are not harmful because we need them..so ..it might be even scary if they are helpful.

Thanks,

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Denson's team had the info about her draft or should have from her.  

Yep.  It's possible that Denson "leaked" her statement to the BYU Police Department.  She "leaked" her audio recording, which was a pretty boneheaded move, given that her attorneys were using it as leverage in confidential settlement negotiations.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no need for her for it to have been released

There was also no need for Denson to release her audio recording.  In fact, there was every reason to not release it.  And yet she did.  Without her attorney's knowledge or consent.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

and it may possibly hurt her case as while it shows, imo, a sensible procedure that would have been problematic imo if skipped given the extreme of her known case at the time (minimum she claimed an attempt of rape in DC, don't know if she then shared it was because she was embarrassed about having an anxiety attack).

I don't think Denson's decisions are entirely rational or reasoned.  She appears to be something of a loose cannon.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as the information about then Elder Monson in and of itself, I am iffy about it being leaked.  I realize this adds to the 'where was the Spirit' discussion, but I don't see much difference there (if you expect leaders to have that level of discernment, it should be there as much for those who called Bishop as those who talked to Denson it would seem) though I realize some will attach greater significance since Elder Monson became Pres. Monson.  However, it also shows there were useful procedures in place where Denson had an opportunity to share (understandably didn't according to her own words elsewhere).  I do think this is important info to show procedures said to be in place back then were used and not skipped.

Yes.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, the name of the second victim has no impact on any awareness of procedures or actions taken.  Her existence has been verified.  There is no need for her name to be out there unless she desires to make a public statement.

Yes, well.  Consig weighed the victim's privacy concerns against his hatred of the LDS Church and his desire to tear it down, and apparently found that the latter outweighed the former.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

For leaking the personal information of a sexual assault victim, I believe the mole should be fired.

I agree.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are those who were demanding discipline of the police officer who shared the alleged (I personally think she was likely raped, but iirc the verdict was not guilty so I am being precise) sexual assault victim's report with the Honor Code office equally upset that the name of this victim has been leaked?  I think he should have been fired myself.

I think we'll find some selective indignance at work.  Indignance where an inappropriate disclosure can be weaponized against the LDS Church, but indifference when it cannot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like Consig..actually he is to me anyway an honest man and very knowledgeable.  He seeks truth and so like you, I feel he has no reason to misrepresent.  He is full of facts...and conclusions can't be made without them.  If ego is any where represented..it is because we need the facts.  Facts are not harmful because we need them..so ..it might be even scary if they are helpful.

Thanks,

Jeanne

We don't need the fact we don't have the second victim's name and he does.

The only one who would be scared by that would be the second victim...pity that, but apparently consig was too eager to share the info he knew to consider that.

Quote

 Consig weighed the victim's privacy concerns against [whatever his motive doing podcasts and such criticizing the Church] and apparently found that the latter outweighed the former.

Perhaps (I haven't looked at consig's current stuff so am removing your specific motive and replacing it with a more generic one so it works with my comment, let me know if you don't like this).  I think it is just as likely he never even thought of her feelings, which might be worse.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...