Lawsuit Re: Sex Abuse Allegations Against Daughter of Pres. Nelson and Her Husband

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

The best analysis I saw put it between 2 and 8 %.  I wouldn't describe that as rare***, even uncommon is pushing it.  However, describing false accusations as common or probable is definitely inaccurate in my view.

It's worth noting that those who most suffer from false accusations are typically minorities as well. The idea of "believe all women" almost certainly won't ultimately hurt significantly the upperclass but rather those who already bear the brunt of most marginalization.

I think we have to take seriously women who make charges. And a huge problem in the past, particularly the 90's and before, was that women weren't taken seriously. However taking someone seriously isn't the same as just believing them no matter what. We'd not do that for any other crime. There was a photo going around Twitter yesterday that seemed apt. (Apparently now banned by Twitter) Gets at the To Kill A Mockingbird parallel someone mentioned.

In the heyday of false memory syndrome in the 90's there were a lot of innocent people who ended up in jail with their lives ruined.

[SteveO]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

5% is awfully low, especially since it's becoming a thing now on the political right to presume all rape accusations leveled against conservatives are some kind of trick. Last year the American right was so concerned about women being attacked in bathrooms. This year they're concerned that women can't be trusted to tell the truth if they're attacked in a bathroom.

So were Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Leslie Millwee part of that 5% of fake allegations? Is that why Bill was elected to a second term?  

I bet you’re falling over yourself with concern about Kavenaugh throwing ice back in the day...what did you think about Bill telling Juanita Broaddrick to ice her lip after violently sexually assaulting her?  Or is that just the sort of trashy woman we can expect when dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park?  The women has to be a liberal from  Palo Alto, California to be credible?

I already know what the left thinks of women who don’t suit their needs.  Which means they’re no friend of women at all.

You’re so totally blind to partisan bias you don’t realize how ridiculous you sound.

What a joke and a sham this all is.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by SteveO

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

5% is awfully low, especially since it's becoming a thing now on the political right to presume all rape accusations leveled against conservatives are some kind of trick. Last year the American right was so concerned about women being attacked in bathrooms. This year they're concerned that women can't be trusted to tell the truth if they're attacked in a bathroom.

I think claiming 5% is "awfully low" is problematic, especially given it is likely five times higher than most other types of false accusations of crimes.  It may be defined as "awfully low" in the context of someone who believes the majority of assault accusations are false, but not so in most other contexts imo.

Otoh, to point to the 5% as if that makes it likely for an allegation to be false is much, much more problematic to me.

I think it is best to use the numbers most agreed upon to demonstrate all accusations should be taken seriously, which to me means investigators should start from the position the accusation is possible so no dismissing of accusations without actual investigation or assumption of innocence (that is for the prosecution part of the investigation) or guilt.****  Further assessment on whether to proceed would require some credible evidence to move to probable and strong evidence to move to charging).  Investigators need to recognize the numbers say little about individual cases, but I have no problem with them requiring extra care, stronger evidence if the accuser falls into the category where false accusations usually occur ( high parental pressure on the alleged victim to go to the police but then no further contact made by the alleged victims once parents back off or there is a history of false allegations with lurid or highly improbable details).

****Research has shown investigations are more likely to be thorough if investigators start from the position of believing the claim (meaning to me if .I interpreted the research correctly believing it is possible, not assuming the accused is automatically guilty), which imo is better than having a half investigated claim or one that is filed without even checking based on investigators' gut reactions to the victim.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

5% is awfully low, especially since it's becoming a thing now on the political right to presume all rape accusations leveled against conservatives are some kind of trick. Last year the American right was so concerned about women being attacked in bathrooms. This year they're concerned that women can't be trusted to tell the truth if they're attacked in a bathroom.

 Unless you're one of those 5%. Then your life is ruined, you cash in all your stock, you mortgage your house and you still don't get a lawyer good enough to impeach a witness. You even pass a lie detector test but the victim, alleged victim doesn't have to take a lie detector test and it's not admissible in court as evidence. then you do 11 years for a crime which you did not commit and which there was not one shred of physical evidence. To me 5% is way too high.

[mapman]

I agree that accusations should be taken seriously and investigated. This particular case seems strange to me. I don't know anything about the details of the case, but if this is a case of "recovered memory" (which I understand was a hot topic back in the day) then the accusers could be sincere in believing something happened when they were kids even though it is made up. Recovered memories also are how most UFO believers end up believing they were abducted.

On the other hand, it always bothers me when people use the defense that they took a polygraph. Polygraphs are pseudoscience and not good evidence.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Accusations of the type in the OP? Yes. But the OP was merely using that as a spring board to talk about Kavanaugh, which is what I was talking about as well.

I wish everything wasn't attached to Kavanaugh right now.  It makes it difficult to discuss the details of something that would usually be unrelated.

[Thinking]

Quote

The Mileses...

Is this correct grammar? Scott?

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting that those who most suffer from false accusations are typically minorities as well. The idea of "believe all women" almost certainly won't ultimately hurt significantly the upperclass but rather those who already bear the brunt of most marginalization.

I think we have to take seriously women who make charges. And a huge problem in the past, particularly the 90's and before, was that women weren't taken seriously. However taking someone seriously isn't the same as just believing them no matter what. We'd not do that for any other crime.....

In the heyday of false memory syndrome in the 90's there were a lot of innocent people who ended up in jail with their lives ruined.

 

For me "taking seriously" means allowing the possibility it is true, investigating it as if it were true while not assuming truth (thus being open to evidence which supports that someone else was the perpetrator or that the crime didn't happen as described or didn't happen at all).

If possible, I would eliminate assuming in investigations, but the human mind doesn't work that way, so instead I would push for procedures that encourage looking at as much evidence as possible to gather ( recognizing there are limits due to resources that prevent this from happening in most cases).

For me, "believe women" is "believe it is possible", not "assume it is Truth".  I think there is a significant difference, enough to protect the innocent, whether victim or falsely accused.

[Hestia]

We do not need another thread to discuss Kavanaugh.  Posters need to stick to the OP.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's a standard that actually ONLY applies to court settings. It's a nonsensical standard outside of a courtroom especially if there are credibility reasons to favor one part over another.

How could investigations proceed if innocence had to be presumed?  Investigators would just have to hope they stumbled across evidence if they couldn't create theories of guilt to investigate.

And as far as outside the legal system, there are many areas where presumption of guilt unless evidence of innocence is present is the wiser choice, imo.  I am not going to presume all potential babysitters are innocent before allowing them access to my children/grandchildren.  That does not mean if I interact with that person I reject as a babysitter because of a lack of strong references outside of the babysitting context, I respond to them as suspicious.  Same thing for turning my money over to someone else.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

At minimum I think ethically challenged prosecutors should themselves be charged.

This is so correct! This is one reason I am against the death penalty...corrupt prosecutors who are going for a "win" instead of the truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like these accusations came forward around the time of the sex abuse scandal hysteria of the 1980s.  I read one online article that stated that that episode was "the most destructive moral panic since the Salem witch trials."  Let's hope were not gearing up for another kind of episode.

I remember that hysteria. Didn't it coincide with the "repressed memory" fad?

Edited October 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

From the Law firm

 Tw graphic content

https://jamesvernonweekspa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/brady_jvwlaw_net/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fbrady_jvwlaw_net%2FDocuments%2F1-18-cv-00121-JNP.pdf&parent=%2Fpersonal%2Fbrady_jvwlaw_net%2FDocuments&slrid=15e3949e-e0cd-6000-4747-843810015dd9

I needs to take a break from this stuff.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Abulafia

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How could investigations proceed if innocence had to be presumed?  Investigators would just have to hope they stumbled across evidence if they couldn't create theories of guilt to investigate.

And as far as outside the legal system, there are many areas where presumption of guilt unless evidence of innocence is present is the wiser choice, imo.  I am not going to presume all potential babysitters are innocent before allowing them access to my children/grandchildren.  That does not mean if I interact with that person I reject as a babysitter because of a lack of strong references outside of the babysitting context, I respond to them as suspicious.  Same thing for turning my money over to someone else.

An investigation is not a conclusion of guilt.

The presumption of innocence undergirds our legal system because it is, at its heart, a fair and just concept. It applies universally to human interaction, be it from the work place to the public sphere to the home.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/937745/Inmate-is-still-adamant-abuse-conviction-off-base.html

Quote

According to Bullock, in September 1985 when it appeared Bullock and his wife at the time were likely to win custody, the ex-spouse took the children to Dr. Barbara Snow, a therapist with the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center.

Before long, Snow was spearheading the investigation into the alleged abuse, which she told police was rampant in the neighborhood. Bullock was eventually charged with abusing four boys when they were 6 or 7 years old.

Snow did not take notes or record any of her interviews with the children, and police found no physical evidence of the alleged abuse, according to court records.

A recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, while denying Bullock's request for a new trial, dubbed Snow's interview techniques "dubious."

"The quest for the truth in sexual abuse cases is always difficult, particularly when the prosecution's case heavily relies upon the testimony of young victims. In this case, Dr. Snow's disturbing and irresponsible conduct has made this quest especially difficult," the court concluded in its decision. "We do not know whether Dr. Snow still counsels children or testifies as a prosecution witness in sexual abuse cases; if she does either, we hope that she now follows proper professional and ethical standards."

In a 1989 Utah Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Justice Daniel Stewart penned a scathing diatribe of Snow's techniques, calling her failure to record or take notes of her interviews "highly unreliable."

"The defendant was tried and convicted on an avalanche of hearsay," Stewart wrote in his response to the 3-2 majority who ruled against Bullock's request for a new trial.

"The record is replete with instances of the use of coercion, threats, pressure and suggestion by both Dr. Snow and several parents," Stewart also wrote....

In a letter to the Board of Pardons prior to Bullock's parole hearing, Craig L. Smith, a former stake president in Bullock's LDS Stake in Bountiful, wrote there were still "many questions unanswered . . . regarding what, if anything, really happened."

"I interviewed Barbara Snow after having six sets of parents complain regarding the pressure she was placing on their children during her interviews," Smith also wrote. "These parents felt Barbara Snow was using techniques to confuse and cause their children to question their own knowledge of what really occurred."

Smith did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story. Some of the alleged victims, including Bullock's own son, later recanted their accusations.

"I've spent two-thirds of my life without a dad because of some stupid social worker," Bullock's son said following his father's parole hearing.

'I'm the messenger'

For her part, Snow would prefer Bullock's case remain out of the spotlight. She does, however, maintain her belief that Bullock is guilty and that she simply served as the "messenger" between the alleged victims and investigators. Snow now runs a private practice in Salt Lake City specializing in treatment for trauma-based disorders in adults.

"Probably the best statement is simply that the jury heard the information that I heard and they convicted him on felony counts," Snow said. "It was my role to offer the information that the children had offered me. I testified to what I had heard and what I had seen."

Snow said her involvement began when a 4-year-old boy was sent to the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center, a private, nonprofit agency where Snow served as the clinical director.

The child said he'd been sexually assaulted by two 7-year-olds. One of the 7-year-olds said their behavior was based on exposure to an adolescent.

"That adolescent reported, in turn, that their behavior, in fact, emanated from their contact with Mr. Bullock," Snow said.

Snow said she interviewed several children in Bullock's neighborhood who reported being sexually abused by him. Snow characterized the acts as "sophisticated sexual conduct."

"This was by no stretch of the imagination conduct that was age-appropriate for children," Snow said.

While convinced his boy was abused, one of the victim's father admitted Snow "always used questionable techniques."

Another victim's father considers his son's allegations legitimate.

"You would really have to be a master manipulator in order to have all those things second-hand into a child's mind and have them hold up in a prosecution," the father said.

Snow was also involved in the prosecution of a similar sexual abuse case in Lehi. The Utah Supreme Court, however, later overturned the convictions based largely on criticisms of Snow's interview techniques with the victims.

"Within a year she was totally destroyed as a credible witness, but it was too late for Bullock," his appeals attorney Craig Cook said.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I remember that hysteria. Didn't it coincide with the "repressed memory" fad?

More than coincided. Most think the repressed memory fad with techniques including hypnosis to "recover" memories actually created them. There's an LDS context to this since Nibley's daughter claimed abused most think was tied to recovered memory.

As to how this relates to the OP claim, it's not clear. It sounds like there was an investigation at the time. My sense is that that people with a grudge against the Church are raising this to embarrass Nelson before conference and when interest in Kavanaugh may mean people take them more seriously. The timing at minimum is suspect. The fact the original claims took place during the witch hunts of the 90's doesn't help. (Remember the claims of a secret combination abusing people in the temple so that when they received their endowments they'd have flashbacks?)

[Calm]

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=%2Fnews%2Fci_8332832

Quote

A therapist accused of unprofessional conduct - including imposing false memories on her relatives - entered into an agreement Tuesday with the state's Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing.

Barbara Snow is voluntarily being placed on probation, according to a statement from her attorney, Elizabeth Bowman.

The state, meanwhile, has dropped its allegations that she imposed false memories and used leading questions during her sessions with relatives. 

"In the end, Dr. Snow felt it was in her family's, clients' and former clients' best interests to enter into the stipulation by ending what promised to be protracted litigation," the statement said.

In January 2007, the division accused Snow of violating Utah codes of professional conduct and ethical principles defined by the National Association of Social Workers.

The disciplinary notice alleged Snow convinced a male relative he was s-xually abused by his father. It also contended Snow convinced a female relative she was the victim of s-tanic abuse and military testing. When state investigators questioned Snow, she allegedly provided made-up notes about those sessions.

In the agreement, Snow admitted destroying a relative's computer equipment and adding two incorrect dates to her psychotherapy notes. The correct dates were located in other portions of the files, and the state ultimately did not find this to be unprofessional conduct.

Snow was involved in the prosecutions of a string of child s-x abuse cases in the 1980s. One man she testified against was granted a new hearing after the Utah Supreme Court questioned her credibility. Another man's conviction was upheld.

Edite to get past 403 censor

Quote

This week, one of the key therapists involved in the satanic ritual scare agreed to be placed on professional probation for violating Utah codes of professional conduct.

Barbara Snow, a licensed clinical social worker, wrote one of the academic articles credited with fueling satanic hysteria. The article, "Ritualistic child abuse in a neighborhood setting" (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 474-487), described secret, organized rings of satanists preying upon suburban children - claims that have never been verified with any credible evidence.

https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/02/recovered-memory-therapist-placed-on.html

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

More than coincided. Most think the repressed memory fad with techniques including hypnosis to "recover" memories actually created them. There's an LDS context to this since Nibley's daughter claimed abused most think was tied to recovered memory.

As to how this relates to the OP claim, it's not clear. It sounds like there was an investigation at the time. My sense is that that people with a grudge against the Church are raising this to embarrass Nelson before conference and when interest in Kavanaugh may mean people take them more seriously. The timing at minimum is suspect. The fact the original claims took place during the witch hunts of the 90's doesn't help. (Remember the claims of a secret combination abusing people in the temple so that when they received their endowments they'd have flashbacks?)

Additional cases questioning Snow's techniques:

https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1990/880234.html

Need to read this as censored too much for all relevant details, but something that should raise a red flag for anyone, imo:

Quote

The affidavit had been prepared by a "paralegal/investigator" who had investigated "four separate alleged child abuse cases in which Barbara Snow or an employee of ISAT [Intermountain S-xual Abuse Center] was or is a percipient witness." The affidavit details the following bizarre factual correlations between those cases and the case resulting in defendant's trial: (1) they all involve a neighborhood "s-x ring" of from three to twenty families; (2) they all involve members of the same church, including a significant number of religious leaders; (3) they all involve satanic rituals and neighborhood "s-x parties"; and (4) in all of the cases, children taken to Barbara Snow at ISAT for counselling have in turn identified other children and adults in the neighborhood. In addition, the affidavit claims that several nearly identical allegations exist in several of these cases.

https://greyfaction.org/how-teal-swans-therapist-instigated-a-satanic-panic/

Quote

To summarize a rather comprehensive write-up of one of the cases: Snow, in 1985, was contacted by a mother of three who felt her children talked “too freely about sex.” After interviewing the children, Snow came to believe they had been sexually abused, and identified the perpetrator as the daughter of a Bishop. Snow asked to interview other children who had the same babysitter, and found that not only the babysitter but her parents, too, had abused many of the children. The Bishop and his wife were also accused of abusing their own younger children, who were taken away and placed in foster homes before being returned after no evidence corroborated Snow’s claims.

Two supporters of Snow — Alan B. Hadfield and Rex Bowers — encouraged the Utah County Sheriff’s Office and the Utah Attorney General Office to open an investigation. However, further interviews with children conducted by Snow led to accusations against both of these men. Snow claimed that children were speaking with her about being initiated into satanic cults and participating in rituals. By 1987, Snow had lodged accusations against 40 adults, nearly all of them Mormons.

But prosecutors only filed charges against Hadfield, and he was likely innocent. A colleague of Snow’s at the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center, and Chief Deputy Utah County Attorney Wayne Watson, witnessed one of Dr. Snow’s interviews and felt that she was pressuring children into disclosing abuse that they originally denied. One girl testified that she felt that Snow would not let her end the interview unless she lodged an accusation of ritual abuse.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The timing at minimum is suspect.

Not just the timing. Can there any good thing come out of Craig Vernon?

I mean, c'mon . . .

[Calm]

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-mouths-of-babes/Content?oid=889956

Quote

Furthermore, the study cited by the Tribune was conducted in part by Utah psychologist Barbara Snow--whose own admittedly "biased" involvement in unearthing alleged ritual abuse sex rings has occasioned more than a little controversy. Snow admits that in at least one case she investigated, "I didn't believe any of those kids when they told me it didn't happen."

Indeed, there is evidence that suggests that Snow's beliefs have had more of an effect on the final outcome of her investigations than the memories of the children she questions. Because the details of several alleged ritual abuse cases she had investigated were so suspiciously similar, Utah police deliberately fed her false information to see if her suggestive interviewing techniques were influencing the children's allegations. Soon enough this information appeared in the answers of the children she interviewed.

 

[Calm]

If Vernon's case rests on primarily Snow, I have a feeling it won't go anywhere.  After reading up on Snow, it sounds like pressure tactics by Vernon.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

From the Law firm

 Tw graphic content

https://jamesvernonweekspa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/brady_jvwlaw_net/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fbrady_jvwlaw_net%2FDocuments%2F1-18-cv-00121-JNP.pdf&parent=%2Fpersonal%2Fbrady_jvwlaw_net%2FDocuments&slrid=15e3949e-e0cd-6000-4747-843810015dd9

I needs to take a break from this stuff.

 

Is there some way to access this without an account?

[provoman]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not just the timing. Can there any good thing come out of Craig Vernon?

I mean, c'mon . . .

What is suspect is Denson made mention of this case last week. What is suspect about that is who spilled her the beans?

Edited October 3, 2018 by provoman

[strappinglad]

Unsurprisingly,  it seems to be human nature to believe accusations initially at least. The accusation immediately colors our opinions. That is why the presumption of innocence is so important. There  will always be that little gremlin of doubt about a person accused. There is a reason that 'not bearing false witness' is part of the 10 commandments.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Unsurprisingly,  it seems to be human nature to believe accusations initially at least. The accusation immediately colors our opinions. That is why the presumption of innocence is so important. There  will always be that little gremlin of doubt about a person accused. There is a reason that 'not bearing false witness' is part of the 10 commandments.

I see as much human nature to disbelieve myself.