Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I know, and that they included information from confidential discussions with Bishops in a file of some kind.  

Do you mean "bishops"?  What confidential information are you claiming they shared outside of the adoption papers?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, "bragging" is my interpretation. 

This is your interpretation of "bragging"?  (Quoting Consig below)

Quote

Just got some additional information on those police reports.

Not from the police, but from a different source.

I now know some of the information in some of the redactions. There are parts still redacted that I have not been able to gain access to.

PAGE 6--In the two lines immediately after Joseph Bishop tells the police "the room did not have a bed, TV or VHS tapes," the redacted portion reads: "He said he also gave a backrub to ____ _____ where he rubbed her buttocks. ____ _____ was living in his house at the time." The following two lines remain redacted.

Note this is the sister missionary who tried to kill herself at the MTC. After that, Joseph Bishop took her into his home to help her recuperate. I know the name of this girl, but am not disclosing it.

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

But how did they get the name of Mckenna's adopted daughter?  That should have been in a confidential file held by the church's family services.  It was wrong for it to be searched out and wrong to give it to the attorney.

We don't know if ALL records from the Church were demanded by her lawyers...I certainly would have if I were them, especially if it was mentioned by Jordan he had a dossier on her.  I believe it should have been redacted, but don't know if that was legal if they demanded all records.  These were files which were meant to be shared with the lawyers involved, not to be made public, so I assume different laws apply.  I assume lawyers can usually be trusted to hold confidential files confidential and if they don't, legal action can be taken.

I really hope Greg Bishop gets disbarred or whatever is allowed for it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except that the article you cite implies that he was.

Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The damage was not in the leaking of the full letter, but in the information Greg Bishop shared with the media.

Quote

How do you account for the assessment from Greg Skordas ("none of the parties did anything “unethical, illegal or improper,” Skordas said. It is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case")?

Don't see why his opinion carries any more weight than mine, although since you apparently know him but not me, I understand why my opinion won't carry that weight to you.

While Skordas says it's reasonable for all three parties to share information about the case, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to share just any such information. I also disagree that none of the parties did anything unethical or improper. It was unethical and improper for Greg Bishop to share information that he know was personal and confidential with the media.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, toon said:

The only way it should have been shared with Greg Bishop is if he was acting as his dad's attorney and if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop.

Hmm.  Greg Skordas has a different view, it seems.

7 minutes ago, toon said:

As mentioned above, while a joint defense agreement allows for the sharing of information between co-defendants (or co-plaintiffs), they typically impose an obligation to not use or disclose that information without authorization.

The memo was "leaked."  The Church did not authorize its publication.

7 minutes ago, toon said:

And I can't imagine the Church having authorized Bishop to do what he did.

Greg Bishop did not divulge the name of the adopted daughter.  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Jordan shared his letter with Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, who is acting as his father’s attorney, to use in any settlement efforts. Jordan did not share his letter with reporters, but Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The full letter has since leaked out.

I don't think we know who leaked the  letter.

7 minutes ago, toon said:

My guess is that there was no such joint defense agreement.

I've been litigating for fourteen years in Utah.  During the last eight years I have been involved in literally hundreds of lawsuits with multiple defendants (consumer finance disputes).  I have represented defendants in these matters, and have worked extensively with attorneys representing the plaintiff and with attorneys representing co-defendants.  I have exchanged thousands of emails with these attorneys.

And in all this time, I have never, even once, used a "joint defense agreement."  Never even heard of it.

7 minutes ago, toon said:

Most likely, Denson's attorney sent an email to the Church's lawyer, probably as follow up to an initial demand letter. Greg Bishop was also included as the attorney representing his Dad. The Church's attorney sent the report to Denson's attorney, and either erroneously did a "reply all" or didn't realize it was an issue. Nothing nefarious, just carelessness.

Or not even that.  See here:

Quote

Jordan “did extraordinary research on this woman … to make it clear that the church was not going to settle,” said Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas. “I am sure he did not intend for Greg Bishop to share it [or part of it] with the media.”

But none of the parties did anything “unethical, illegal or improper,” Skordas said. It is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is your interpretation of "bragging"?  (Quoting Consig below)

 

Yep.  Any mention where it was not needed for explanation is for the purpose of showing he knows something we don't, imo, and thus is bragging.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, toon said:
Quote

Except that the article you cite implies that he was.

No, I don't think so.  From the article:

Quote

Jordan shared his letter with Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, who is acting as his father’s attorney, to use in any settlement efforts. Jordan did not share his letter with reporters, but Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The full letter has since leaked out.

I don't read that as an implication against Bishop at all.  To the contrary, I read it as identifying two sources: Bishop (who redacted sensitive information from the letter "and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad") and someone else (who leaked the "full letter" without redacting anything).

1 minute ago, toon said:

Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The damage was not in the leaking of the full letter, but in the information Greg Bishop shared with the media.

I'm not sure that's right.  What information do you think Greg Bishop shared that was "damaging?"

1 minute ago, toon said:

Don't see why his opinion carries any more weight than mine, although since you apparently know him but not me, I understand why my opinion won't carry that weight to you.

Yes, pretty much that.  I don't know Greg Skordas, except by reputation and work product.  I don't know you from Adam.

1 minute ago, toon said:

While Skordas says it's reasonable for all three parties to share information about the case, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to share just any such information.

Actually yes, I think that's what it means.  I regularly receive all sorts of extraneous information about other parties as part of litigation.  

1 minute ago, toon said:

I also disagree that none of the parties did anything unethical or improper. It was unethical and improper for Greg Bishop to share information that he know was personal and confidential with the media.

What "personal and confidential" information did he share?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reviewed his post.  You are correct.  He says he got the information from some other source.

Still creepy and wrong, though.

My understanding is that Consig is doing research for a podcast. Maybe not typical journalism, but still journalism nevertheless.

He had submitted a GRAMA request to BYU PD and received a redacted report. Some redactions appear to have been greater than necessary to exclude personal identifying information, so he appealed those redactions to the police chief.

It's also my understanding that he has been in contact with Ms. Denson's attorneys. And his probably seeking information from them as well as from other sources, wherever he can get them.

While his error may have been to prematurely share what he found and risk people drawing premature conclusions, I don't see how anything about what he's done can be considered creepy. I would expect any journalist pursing the story to seek out that info, even from moles.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I really hope Greg Bishop gets disbarred or whatever is allowed for it.

What do you think Greg Bishop did that merits disbarment?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, toon said:

Except that the article you cite implies that he was.

Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The damage was not in the leaking of the full letter, but in the information Greg Bishop shared with the media.

Don't see why his opinion carries any more weight than mine, although since you apparently know him but not me, I understand why my opinion won't carry that weight to you.

While Skordas says it's reasonable for all three parties to share information about the case, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to share just any such information. I also disagree that none of the parties did anything unethical or improper. It was unethical and improper for Greg Bishop to share information that he know was personal and confidential with the media.

I had forgotten that Bishop didn't share the adopted daughter's name with the media even if he shared the rest.   As far as I am aware he didn't tell the media "I know the daughter's name, but I am not telling it".  It was probably the one thing he kept quiet on from what I saw.  He has a little bit of my respect for that self control.  He may have been wise enough not to include any confidential info.

I still find him a jerk for how he said somethings, he was derogatory and dismissive where he didn't need to be and shouldn't have been imo, but that may not be disbarment material.

 I only read the article quoting the adopted daughter once.  Does it say who showed her the unredacted info?

 I am thinking the sharing information quote was meant only the publicly available information (such as police files) as  that comment I believe was made before it was known publicly that the adopted daughter's name was shared with media.

Or it could be referring to just being shared within the lawyer circle.  Need to go reread the context to know.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.  Any mention where it was not needed for explanation is for the purpose of showing he knows something we don't, imo, and thus is bragging.

I disagree.  It could have just been an FYI or him being completely honest regarding what he'd learned.  Bragging gives a negative connotation and you have no idea he was actually motivated to boast or brag....or if he was just being thorough with what he'd learned.  I see nothing there indicating he was trying to brag.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, I’m asking about the spiritual discernment of Church leaders. Or rather, the demonstrable lack of it.

We had a really lengthy discussion about that issue a few weeks ago. If you are interested I’m pretty sure it’s searchable on here. I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t see any reason to hash it out again here. 

My short answer is that I don’t believe the gift of discernment works the way most people in the church believe it does. I think we have a spiritually immature understanding of it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you think Greg Bishop did that merits disbarment?

Thanks,

-Smac

Misremembered he did not share the adopted daughter's name.  If he shared any confidential info in the dossier, he should be disbarred or whatever is possible imo whether or not the media shared it.  I don't remember any confidential info shared by the media, just police reports that are publicly accessible.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.  It could have just been an FYI or him being completely honest regarding what he'd learned.  Bragging gives a negative connotation and you have no idea he was actually motivated to boast or brag....or if he was just being thorough with what he'd learned.  I see nothing there indicating he was trying to brag.

My opinion, I am rabid on privacy issues.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"That's complicated."

I agree.

Might the same also be said for Joseph Bishop having been called as the president of the MTC?

"We have no idea why."

I agree.

Might the same also be said for Joseph Bishop having been called as the president of the MTC?

Yes.  

Do you likewise characterize Judas being called as an apostle as somethign that "went wrong?"

Apparently not.  

"That's complicated."

"We have no idea why."

So why can't we say the same about Joseph Bishop?

I don't know.

No, I don't believe that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nice dodge, but it's what I expected.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion, I am rabid on privacy issues.

I am too.  He did not disclose the name and states he doesn't plan to.  Him admitting he knows the identity is not bragging, IMO but just being completely honest regarding what he's learned.

Usually if someone is bragging, it's not done in the same manner as he did as he simply and briefly gave the information.  But we can disagree....I'm fine with that too.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, toon said:

My understanding is that Consig is doing research for a podcast. Maybe not typical journalism, but still journalism nevertheless.

He had submitted a GRAMA request to BYU PD and received a redacted report. Some redactions appear to have been greater than necessary to exclude personal identifying information, so he appealed those redactions to the police chief.

It's also my understanding that he has been in contact with Ms. Denson's attorneys. And his probably seeking information from them as well as from other sources, wherever he can get them.

While his error may have been to prematurely share what he found and risk people drawing premature conclusions, I don't see how anything about what he's done can be considered creepy. I would expect any journalist pursing the story to seek out that info, even from moles.

 Unless the second victim has given permission to share any additional information about herself, I find any reference to that information or even awareness of that info inappropriate as assault victims do not need to know they are the casual topic of conversation of total strangers, yet another example of how they have lost control over their own boundaries (we don't have many in reality these days, but victims often have that fact pounded into them during a time they need to believe otherwise).  I don't even want to be having this conversation bringing more attention to it, but feel it is important to point out that the choice of sexual assault victims to not share their experience or to share it in a very limited way publicly should be respected, including not seeking them out as journalists just in case one can break down their silence.

If she gave permission for her name to be shared to be contacted, I will withdraw my protest.

I think journalists are harassing victims when they seek them out after it is obvious they don't want to say more.  I don't think it is the public' right to know all or a journalist's duty to rummage through others' lives if they are not accused of crimes or do not intentionally put themselves in the public eye.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Greg Bishop did not divulge the name of the adopted daughter.  See here (emphasis added):

I don't think we know who leaked the  letter.

I wasn't talking about the leak of the adopted daughter's name.

Greg Bishop shared other information her learned in the letter with the media. This information was used to discredit Denson. I don't see how this is in dispute.

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

Quote

I've been litigating for fourteen years in Utah.  During the last eight years I have been involved in literally hundreds of lawsuits with multiple defendants (consumer finance disputes).  I have represented defendants in these matters, and have worked extensively with attorneys representing the plaintiff and with attorneys representing co-defendants.  I have exchanged thousands of emails with these attorneys.

And in all this time, I have never, even once, used a "joint defense agreement."  Never even heard of it.

Well, now you have.

At its most basic, a JDA is just a written memorialization of the joint defense privilege. The benefit is that it helps define how and when that privilege applies to the matter at hand so that the parties are on the same page. And perhaps, most important, it sets forth the parties obligations with regard to how they handle and what they can do with confidential information that has been shared.

I don't always litigate with one in place, but often have. They may be especially important when a co-defendant (or counsel for a co-defendant) has potentially conflicting motives and interests. Of course, when there are serious conflicts, it may be best to either not share or be careful about sharing confidential and privileged info.

Edited by toon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean "bishops"?  What confidential information are you claiming they shared outside of the adoption papers?

Yes, I meant bishops or church leaders.  I believe the dossier included information that she disclosed to her ecclesiastical leaders prior to serving a mission.  I think the adoption papers should have also been confidential and I think that keeping that confidential is typically standard practice.  

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To be clear, it is my understanding that (generally speaking) a police report is public information and can be obtained via an appropriate request.  I think the question at hand is why the BYU Police Department is taking steps to redact some of the information that is being redacted.  The victim's name is certainly understandable; some of the other redactions are bit more of a mystery.

If consig went through proper channels to receive the info he did and it was not leaked, that would be different.

If there is something illegal in redacting the reports, then if identifying information about any victim was not shared, I would feel different about the mole.  If the mole merely skipped the appropriate request process, I still think he should be fired.  I don't believe employees of the police or others who have access to reports should be handing them out on their own volition.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I meant bishops or church leaders.  I believe the dossier included information that she disclosed to her ecclesiastical leaders prior to serving a mission.  I think the adoption papers should have also been confidential and I think that keeping that confidential is typically standard practice.  

What if her lawyer demanded the info, appropriate to share with him or not in your view?  What if there were accusations involving the adoption process?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If consig went through proper channels to receive the info he did and it was not leaked, that would be different.

If there is something illegal in redacting the reports, then if identifying information about any victim was not shared, I would feel different about the mole.  If the mole merely skipped the appropriate request process, I still think he should be fired.  I don't believe employees of the police or others who have access to reports should be handing them out on their own volition.

I don't disagree with you.  I was just providing some clarification lest we go off on tangents about what was and was not "leaked".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't disagree with you.  I was just providing some clarification lest we go off on tangents about what was and was not "leaked".

I appreciate any clarity provided these days. :)

Iirc, I think I just posted the previous post in case there was more info out there correcting any faulty impression I had concluded based on limited info or from possibly reading consig's info too quickly without doublechecking my interpretation.  I would prefer to be wrong about people than to have them actually do things I believe are potentially harmful to others.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Colour me impressed with everyone who remembers all these details and who said what and when!

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know what page it is on, I did a search on "anxiety attack".   Likely page 43 as marked on the link.   This site  has a search function of its own that works much nicer than my iPad, but no copy paste:

https://www.scribd.com/document/374544769/2017-Joseph-L-Bishop-Transcript

The transcript has Denson describing the therapist (as she calls him) she met with when she was sent wherever (she says a Mormon familiy's home, not her own home) after her rape accusation on her mission.  She apparently does not have fond memories of him, vulgar language and saying all he did was talk about himself.  Said he kept saying 'you have a secret' and she refused to tell him because she didn't like him.  Would have told him if she did.

Immediately after that she says she was sent back out into the mission field, nothing about a meeting with Elder Monson or a change in the mission either.

Don't recall the audio for this specific, but generally remember she sounded angry and tense when she started swearing, and stuff often came out sounding not particularly rehearsed as some other sections did to me.  She is jumping to other topics in the transcript which make me assume this is one of those more 'off the cuff' times.  

She never mentions speaking to Elder Monson in the rest of the transcript or refers to the therapist again.

Edited by Calm

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...