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

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem for those who would defend Brother Bishop

"Defend Brother Bishop" = "Failing to uncritically accept potentially the coerced confession of a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia who was being questioned by a woman who used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one 'interview' and then proceeded to repeatedly remind him that she had threatened to murder him."

I think the presumption of innocence should apply here.

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

is that he doesn't admit to the attempted-rape that the interviewer describes, but instead he brings up other situations and people that were unknown to the interviewer.

He brings up recollections of "other situations and people" that may be influenced by his being 85, his possibly having dementia, his possibly being under the influence of medication, his possibly feeling threatened/coerced by having found himself alone with a women who used false pretnses to lure him into a one-on-one interview and then switches gears midway through, tells him she has previously threatened to murder him, and demands that he apologize.

Such "recollections" are necessarily suspect.

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It would be like someone being hauled in and accused for murder and saying "No, I didn't kill that guy, but I did kill this other guy that you don't know about and his body is buried out by the river." 

Apples and oranges.  Look at the context in which his "confessions" were obtained.

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't think the Innocence Project would touch that case with a 10 foot pole. 

Police coercing suspects into false confessions is their raison d'être.

Such coercive extractions usually involve a suspect whose mental competency is compromised in some way, either through A) threats from the police, B) physical/mental fatigue, C) a scary/threatening environment, D) manipulating the suspect through leading questions, accusations, etc.

All of this stuff happened, to some extent, in this case.  The woman's repeated references to her prior threats to murder him may well have been construed by Bro. Bishop as a present threat (particularly since she had used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one "interview").  And he's 85 years old, so likely not able to physically defend himself against a woman who is making accusations against him, reminding him of her prior threats to murder him, and demanding that he respond in a particular way (that he admit wrongdoing and apologize).

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If Brother Bishop denied the rape accusation and then continued to hazily wander as she tried to pin something on him, then there would be a case for "bluff evidence."  But when Brother Bishop is talking about people and situations that the interviewer didn't know about, the chances of a "false confession" are extremely remote.

I disagree.  When a compromised 85-year old man, possibly with dementia and/or under medication, is lured under false pretenses into a private one-on-one "interview" by someone who, it turns out, and who is accusing him of rape, and who is reminding him that she has previously threatened to murder him, and is demanding a confession, there all sorts of red flags going up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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

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

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

 There is a reason leading questions are not usually allowed in court when examining the witnesses. 

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

 There is a reason leading questions are not usually allowed in court when examining the witnesses. 

You can lead during cross examination or when a witness is hostile.  In this case, the accuser interviewing the accused is like cross examination where leading questions would be allowed.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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

I am not a lawyer but I would not pursue the case. The physical evidence is all gone. You cannot prosecute a case on the basis of “he confessed he did something similar to someone else”

Also, I believe this happened in Argentina so you have jurisdictional issues even for a civil case.

[Danzo]

48 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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

Assuming that case was still allowable under the statute, I would look for other corroborating evidence. the only possible use of this recording would be to use as a path to get other, better, evidence. The recording itself doesn't not lend itself to credibility. I don't think it would carry the burden of proof required.

Also, Although I haven't read the transcript (I don't have time, so don't ask) nothing I have read here indicates an other evidence other than possible admissions. There doesn't seem to be any information provided (that he wasn't lead to) that corroborates facts that can be independently verified , or event facts that provide elements of the crime.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Danzo

[rockpond]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I am not a lawyer but I would not pursue the case. The physical evidence is all gone. You cannot prosecute a case on the basis of “he confessed he did something similar to someone else”

Also, I believe this happened in Argentina so you have jurisdictional issues even for a civil case.

The alleged incident was at the MTC (when Bishop was MTC president, not when he was president of the Buenos Aires North mission).

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Defend Brother Bishop" = "Failing to uncritically accept potentially the coerced confession of a possibly under-the-influence-of-medication 85-year old man with a failing memory and possible dementia who was being questioned by a woman who used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one 'interview' and then proceeded to repeatedly remind him that she had threatened to murder him."

I think the presumption of innocence should apply here.

He brings up recollections of "other situations and people" that may be influenced by his being 85, his possibly having dementia, his possibly being under the influence of medication, his possibly feeling threatened/coerced by having found himself alone with a women who used false pretnses to lure him into a one-on-one interview and then switches gears midway through, tells him she has previously threatened to murder him, and demands that he apologize.

Such "recollections" are necessarily suspect.

Apples and oranges.  Look at the context in which his "confessions" were obtained.

Police coercing suspects into false confessions is their raison d'être.

Such coercive extractions usually involve a suspect whose mental competency is compromised in some way, either through A) threats from the police, B) physical/mental fatigue, C) a scary/threatening environment, D) manipulating the suspect through leading questions, accusations, etc.

All of this stuff happened, to some extent, in this case.  The woman's repeated references to her prior threats to murder him may well have been construed by Bro. Bishop as a present threat (particularly since she had used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one "interview").  And he's 85 years old, so likely not able to physically defend himself against a woman who is making accusations against him, reminding him of her prior threats to murder him, and demanding that he respond in a particular way (that he admit wrongdoing and apologize).

I disagree.  When a compromised 85-year old man, possibly with dementia and/or under medication, is lured under false pretenses into a private one-on-one "interview" by someone who, it turns out, and who is accusing him of rape, and who is reminding him that she has previously threatened to murder him, and is demanding a confession, there all sorts of red flags going up.

Thanks,

-Smac

He was being interviewed in a retirement home, right?  So, there are many staff that could have helped Bishop stop the interview at any time if he felt threatened.  Also, there is no evidence of dementia other than what you wish to believe regarding someone who is old and cannot remember some facts of one of his possible exploits.

[The Nehor]

Just now, rockpond said:

The alleged incident was at the MTC (when Bishop was MTC president, not when he was president of the Buenos Aires North mission).

Oh oops. Ignore that part then.

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You can lead during cross examination or when a witness is hostile.  In this case, the accuser interviewing the accused is like cross examination where leading questions would be allowed.

Your leading during cross should be constrained to issues raised in the initial examination. 

Don't see that happening here.

Leading a witness who is hostile is still very suspect and permission from the court is necessary (and would be subject to an objection) and would need to be supervised by the court.

None of that happened in this case. 

leading witnesses, even during cross or even when hostile doesn't give you good evidence.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Danzo

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

He was being interviewed in a retirement home, right?  So, there are many staff that could have helped Bishop stop the interview at any time if he felt threatened.  Also, there is no evidence of dementia other than what you wish to believe regarding someone who is old and cannot remember some facts of one of his possible exploits.

Have you spent much time in a retirement home? getting someone who speaks English, let alone cares would be difficult.

 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Assuming that case was still allowable under the statute, I would look for other corroborating evidence. the only possible use of this recording would be to use as a path to get other, better, evidence. The recording itself doesn't not lend itself to credibility. I don't think it would carry the burden of proof required.

I agree with you there.  This would warrant further investigation for sure, if there were a chance to seek a legal solution.  The woman was obviously angry and her story would definitely have to be corroborated somehow by placing her at the scene with Bishop.  Maybe the MTC kept records of who Bishop saw as President.  I would venture to guess that accurate records were kept back then of what the MTC president did on a daily basis. The incident happened without any other witnesses other than the accused and the accuser, a difficult case to make.  Also, she waited a long time to bring these allegations to light.  However, Bishop doesn't leave the interview, apologizes profusely throughout and admits to molesting one person and confusing the accuser with others that with whom he had exploits.  I think he did something and ultimately, I think there would have to be a #metoo type of up-swelling of victims coming forward to make the case, assuming we were looking at this 30 years ago.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, omni said:

I find it telling that Bishop's son inferred medication may have played a role in his father's responses, but no mention of dementia. 

Kids if they have any feeling at all aren't going to publicly announce their parent has dementia unless they have to  if the parent is still capable of reading or watching news.  I hope my mother dies before she knows I think she has dementia.  I insist when she gets troubled by her confusion, it is simply the same as everyone else.  Dementia patients have enough to deal with already, they don't need to have their nose rubbed into the fact they are slowly losing their mind.

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the presumption of innocence should apply here.

 

In this case, it would be more of a "post-sumption" of innocence.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Your leading during cross should be constrained to issues raised in the initial examination. 

Don't see that happening here.

Leading a witness who is hostile is still very suspect and permission from the court is necessary (and would be subject to an objection) and would need to be supervised by the court.

None of that happened in this case. 

leading witnesses, even during cross or even when hostile doesn't give you good evidence.

Her interview could have been done a lot better and if this were the only piece of evidence, the case would not go very far.  Even so, it looks like Bishop did something and he is lucky the statute has run.

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The alleged incident was at the MTC (when Bishop was MTC president, not when he was president of the Buenos Aires North mission).

I'm pretty sure the MTC has diplomatic immunity.  It's like an embassy for the Celestial Kingdom.

[bluebell]

These are the things that cause me pause in believing Bishop's confession in the interview.  They stem from statements by those who claim to know Bishop personally that he has been suffering from dementia for years (statements which have not be proven or verified but which I don't feel comfortable ignoring):

1)-I've read that dementia does not just cause memory loss.  It can also cause false memories.

2)-There is a link between dementia and hyper sexuality (as Cal has repeatedly mentioned) and I'm unsure if that, coupled with false memories, could result in sexualized false memories.

3)-Scientists have reported that in dementia patients, "new research found that the ability of the brain to maintain complete, detailed memories is more likely disrupted. The remaining, less detailed memories are relatively easily confused, leading to an increased likelihood of falsely remembering information that was not encountered."  

4)-Whether or not leading questions are fair or allowable in court, I'm unsure of how they would affect someone suffering from dementia and how likely they would be to cause false memories.

Edited March 21, 2018 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Have you spent much time in a retirement home? getting someone who speaks English, let alone cares would be difficult.

 

Not so, if that retirement home had an Alzheimers/Dementia unit, then yes. But if anyone would finally listen to the recording then maybe they'd get an understanding. I'm not speaking to those that haven't got the time yet. But if you really want to see for yourself, listen to the audio. I've been around many that have dementia and Alzheimer's, sometimes on a daily basis, and IMO he doesn't have it severe enough that he can't remember. Heck, even I have a faulty memory sometimes, but he's well enough that he would remember having molested someone. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Also, there is no evidence of dementia other than what you wish to believe regarding someone who is old and cannot remember some facts of one of his possible exploits.

The statements that he has been suffering from dementia for years come from people who have claimed to know him on a private Facebook group.  You are right in that they haven't been proven, but they come from more than just interpretation of the interview.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I agree with you there.  This would warrant further investigation for sure, if there were a chance to seek a legal solution.  The woman was obviously angry and her story would definitely have to be corroborated somehow by placing her at the scene with Bishop.  Maybe the MTC kept records of who Bishop saw as President.  I would venture to guess that accurate records were kept back then of what the MTC president did on a daily basis. The incident happened without any other witnesses other than the accused and the accuser, a difficult case to make.  Also, she waited a long time to bring these allegations to light.  However, Bishop doesn't leave the interview, apologizes profusely throughout and admits to molesting one person and confusing the accuser with others that with whom he had exploits.  I think he did something and ultimately, I think there would have to be a #metoo type of up-swelling of victims coming forward to make the case, assuming we were looking at this 30 years ago.

Wouldn't there be a companion to the girl at the MTC? Should could be interviewed to corroborate Bishop at the MTC, and possibly to the girl's state of mind after the alleged incident.  (of course the 30+years time laps would make her memories unreliable).

This is why we have a statute of limitations, to get the trial when the evidence is fresh.  

The most disturbing thing to me is the the idea that this girl is experienced with accusing men falsely of this particular crime. If that were true, then all credibility of the accuser would be lost and there would be no hope of prosecuting the case unless a more credible witness were to appear. 

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These are the things that cause me pause in believing Bishop's confession in the interview.  They stem from statements by those who claim to know Bishop personally that he has been suffering from dementia for years (statements which have not be proven or verified but which I don't feel comfortable ignoring):

1)-I've read that dementia does not just cause memory loss.  It can also cause false memories.

2)-There is a link between dementia and hyper sexuality (as Cal has repeatedly mentioned) and I'm unsure if that, coupled with false memories, could result in sexualized false memories.

3)-Scientists have reported that in dementia patients, "new research found that the ability of the brain to maintain complete, detailed memories is more likely disrupted. The remaining, less detailed memories are relatively easily confused, leading to an increased likelihood of falsely remembering information that was not encountered."

All good and fair statements.

Does the possibility that the woman's accusations and Bishop's admissions are true give you any pause?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

 

The problem cinepro describes of Brother Bishop describing other events and not admitting to the attempted rape being a marker of guilt is that the behavior would also be quite consistent with a individual not being able to remember being in the balloon, as it were, even though his supposed balloon trip is clearly described to him. 

There is also the possibility that the previous investigation back in 2010 planted ideas that he now sees as reality if he actually has dementia.  Even if innocent, he could have felt guilty in the past for not helping someone better or not taking extra precautions and that guilt could get attached to the descriptions of the accusations so he starts to think he actually commit those acts.  Dementia is weird when it comes to filling in memory gaps.  It has to feel logical to the person, so they will come up with explanations for how they feel that are random appearing on the surface.

The interview is not something that had no history for him so that anything he says is either actual memory or a creation right then and there.  Instead, there is at least a seven year history of time for him to be thinking of being accused as a rapist if he was actually talked to as the Church claims even if he doesn't remember the conversation.

OTOH, he may be partially remembering actual occurrences.

On another subject, it appears many are interpreting any mention of another woman as him identifying another victim when from what .I read at times he may simply be struggling to identify who she is or who she is talking about and thinking about sister missionaries he knew and not victims.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

if we doubt the interview then we have to throw out everything, pro or con for him or her and all we have is a lady who is upset and so more witnesses are required. This has been going since the 1980's, what more is needed to close this situation? what does that say about the leaders involved if they do or don't include the Holy Ghost? if it was revealed that he is lying then why not hold a church court, the laws of the land don't admit the HG as evidence but neither would lying to legal authorities constitute as being innocent.If it wasn't revealed? then what in the .........are they waiting for? if he has dementia is he all of sudden become lucid and tell everything? This is a real world situation so where is the spirit in all of this if this happened or didn't happen, do we believe in seeking guidance and being led by God or don't we?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Duncan said:

if we doubt the interview then we have to throw out everything, pro or con for him or her and all we have is a lady who is upset and so more witnesses are required. This has been going since the 1980's, what more is needed to close this situation? what does that say about the leaders involved if they do or don't include the Holy Ghost? if it was revealed that he is lying then why not hold a church court, the laws of the land don't admit the HG as evidence but neither would lying to legal authorities constitute as being innocent.If it wasn't revealed? then what in the .........are they waiting for? if he has dementia is he all of sudden become lucid and tell everything? This is a real world situation so where is the spirit in all of this if this happened or didn't happen, do we believe in seeking guidance and being led by God or don't we?

Why would the Holy Ghost want to get involved?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Wouldn't there be a companion to the girl at the MTC? Should could be interviewed to corroborate Bishop at the MTC, and possibly to the girl's state of mind after the alleged incident.  (of course the 30+years time laps would make her memories unreliable).

This is why we have a statute of limitations, to get the trial when the evidence is fresh.  

The most disturbing thing to me is the the idea that this girl is experienced with accusing men falsely of this particular crime. If that were true, then all credibility of the accuser would be lost and there would be no hope of prosecuting the case unless a more credible witness were to appear. 

 

That's the "most disturbing" part of all this for you?  The possibility that a mission and MTC president was sexually abusing young women isn't more or at least equally disturbing?  The fact that he may have continued to do it while high ranking church leaders knew about his proclivities doesn't rank up there?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All good and fair statements.

Does the possibility that the woman's accusations and Bishop's admissions are true give you any pause?

If the accusations are true, than I do not believe his actions will go unpunished.  He will very soon be asked to account to someone much higher than the law.

However, in the case, the punishment will have to wait.. There is probably nothing the state (or church) can do.

I know we like to think that everyone gets their reward in this life but that is not, nor ever has been the case.

We would like to think that people in leadership in this church will never do anything wrong, but that never has been the case either. 

I know we would like it to be so, but the lord doesn't turn off ones agency or temptations when they get called to church leadership positions. No one is more or less worthy based on their calling.