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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

 

The one time Mom was in Rehab we were always given lots of space for privacy.  While people were wandering around, no one came to ask if things were okay as long as I was there.  And if Mom's reports were accurate, even when she was on her own, it could take 20 minutes or more for a response.  This was consistent with my experience from one night stay and many daytime visits.  And this was a high end home.  I have heard reports of much worse conditions in cheaper places.

They were excellent in every other way, just needed more staff.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

So, let me see if I understand - You are perfectly comfortable stating as fact the accusation that she has "falsely accused ten men" because you have other evidence that causes you to doubt her credibility on this.

I am inclined to think that a licensed attorney would not publicly lie about such a specific thing.  There's this:

Quote

Following the recorded interaction between Bishop and his accuser in December 2017, Brigham Young University Police Department opened an investigation into the alleged sexual assault. BYU Police would only release a heavily redacted copy of the police report, but included a statement from Utah County Deputy Attorney David Sturgill indicating he "had no reason to doubt the victim's disclosure, and would have likely prosecuted Mr. Bishop, but for the expiration of the statute of limitations."

However, Joseph Bishop's attorney and son, Greg Bishop, provided 2News with his own reasons for doubting the woman's story. Bishop provided 2News with a list of nearly two dozen incidents stating the same woman made false accusations against individuals and companies. Those incidents include allegedly false allegations of rape, planted evidence, and personal injury. Some of those claims included documentation. Others did not. Idaho attorney Craig Vernon represents Bishop's accuser. He tells 2News that while his client has actions in her life "she wishes she could take back," many of the claims are not true, and that Bishop's family is "running a smear campaign" to discredit her. "The tape speaks for itself," Vernon said.

I find it fairly significant that Greg Bishop is not publicly releasing this "documentation" (but letting a news organization scrutinize it).  He clearly has every incentive to do so, since it could exonerate his father.  However, that exoneration could come at a high cost, that is, the disclosure of the woman's identity.

If the Bishops are "'running a smear campaign' to discredit her," then why are they not publicly releasing the documentation?  

More to the point, why is the woman's own attorney not releasing it?

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

  Note, you don't qualify the "falsely accused" statement in any measurable way; not even "allegedly".  Am I understanding your position?

Okay, I'll qualify it now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

   However, Bishop doesn't leave the interview...

Has there been any information on his mobility?  If he just had surgery (and possibly was in rehab because of it),  he may be wheelchair bound or needs help walking.

In the audio, is there any interruptions by staff or noise of people around them?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

The problem, for me, is the ever increasing number of data points which do not justify maintaining faith; reaching a tipping point, so to speak.

Totally understand. For me, when you realize that a flawed human organization has purely human origins, there aren’t many data points left justifying faith. 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am inclined to think that a licensed attorney would not publicly lie about such a specific thing.  There's this:

I find it fairly significant that Greg Bishop is not publicly releasing this "documentation" (but letting a news organization scrutinize it).  He clearly has every incentive to do so, since it could exonerate his father.  However, that exoneration could come at a high cost, that is, the disclosure of the woman's identity.

If the Bishops are "'running a smear campaign' to discredit her," then why are they not publicly releasing the documentation?  

More to the point, why is the woman's own attorney not releasing it?

Okay, I'll qualify it now.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's all I was getting at. It looked VERY uneven.

For the record, I think she's taken a number of actions which are extremely detrimental to her own credibility.  The mere mention of the death threat was enough to damage her credibility.  If all of her allegations against J. Bishop are true, she hasn't helped her own case at all; and that would be a real shame.  Conversely, if none of her accusations are true, the damage she is doing is unforgivable.

Edited March 21, 2018 by ttribe

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

An undisclosed criminal history says nothing of motive in this case. 

Sure it does.  See here:

Quote

Joseph Bishop's attorney and son, Greg Bishop, provided 2News with his own reasons for doubting the woman's story. Bishop provided 2News with a list of nearly two dozen incidents stating the same woman made false accusations against individuals and companies. Those incidents include allegedly false allegations of rape, planted evidence, and personal injury. Some of those claims included documentation. Others did not.

If she's a shakedown artist, then that certainly speaks to motive.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Asserting sex allegations against other men is not motive. 

Asserting sex allegations against other men as indicative of a pattern of shakedown behavior speaks to motive.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unless it has been proven that she was lying in other cases. 

Oh, so suddenly we're requiring proof?  Since when?  Unproven allegations against Bro. Bishop are to be uncritically accepted, but unproven allegations against an anonymous woman must first be proven?

How does that work?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do we understand her motive in those accusations?  If not, then there is no "apparent motive" in this case either. 

I disagree.  A shakedown is an "apparent motive."

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Mental illness and confabulation, OK I will give you those as possible motives.

Okay.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church received the tapes from her lawyer.

It did?  When?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

That pretty well takes extortion/blackmail off the table, unless you think the lawyer is colluding with her to extort/blackmail the church.  According to the Church's press release, her attorney is the one who contacted them in January with the tape. 

Hmm.  I can't find the Church's press release.  Can you quote the relevant portion?

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

To me, withholding judgment means not making any presumptions.

Agreed.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

A legal presumption of innocence for Bishop makes sense in a court of law, but when it comes to public opinion, a presumption of innocence for Bishop is a presumption of guilt/mental illness/confabulation for the woman.

Maybe.

The contents of the transcript are innately problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's all I was getting at. It looked VERY uneven.

For the record, I think she's taken a number of actions which are extremely detrimental to her own credibility. 

Agreed.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The mere mention of the death threat was enough to damage her credibility. 

And mentioning it repeatedly.

And mentioning it to an ill 85-year old man she has lured into a private, one-on-one "interview" under false pretenses, as a predicate for demands that he admit to misconduct and apologize for it.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If all of her allegations against J. Bishop are true, she hasn't helped her own case at all; and that would be a real shame. 

Agreed.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Conversely, if none of her accusations are true, the damage she is doing is unforgivable.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Totally off topic, but I so enjoy the uniqueness of your language.

oh ahahhahahha! well, thanks!

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

The problem, for me, is the ever increasing number of data points which do not justify maintaining faith; reaching a tipping point, so to speak.

You have to go where your heart and mind and life takes you.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I can't find the Church's press release.  Can you quote the relevant portion?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

"The matter resurfaced in 2016 when the same individual contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado, and then again a few weeks ago in January 2018, when the Church was contacted by a lawyer representing her. He provided a copy of a recording that she had made of a conversation between her and 85-year-old Joseph Bishop in December 2017."

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure it does.  See here:

If she's a shakedown artist, then that certainly speaks to motive.

What am I looking at here regarding her criminal history?  How is her specific criminal history motive in this case?  What is her specific criminal history?  

Big if.  I could say the opposite, if she's not a shakedown artist...  It doesn't speak to motive.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, so suddenly we're requiring proof?  Since when?  Unproven allegations against Bro. Bishop are to be uncritically accepted, but unproven allegations against an anonymous woman must first be proven?

If you want to substantiate the allegation that she is a shakedown artist...yes.  Or are we simply going to assume things about those cases?  What was that you were saying about presumption of innocence...doesn't apply to her?      

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  A shakedown is an "apparent motive."

I agree, but you simply have not demonstrated that she is a shakedown artist.  That is your dilemma.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It did?  When?

Hmm.  I can't find the Church's press release.  Can you quote the relevant portion?

Quote

 The matter resurfaced in 2016...and then again a few weeks ago in January 2018, when the Church was contacted by a lawyer representing her. He provided a copy of a recording that she had made of a conversation between her and 85-year-old Joseph Bishop in December 2017. 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

 

[Danzo]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am inclined to think that a licensed attorney would not publicly lie about such a specific thing.

You are a bit more optimist about the legal profession than I am.

A licensed attorneys can be just as economical with the truth as anyone else.

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

You are a bit more optimist about the legal profession than I am.

I am a bit more realistic, perhaps.  A lawyer caught in such a flagrant and public lie injures his reputation and possibly gets in some hot water with the bar.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I am a bit more realistic, perhaps.  A lawyer caught in such a flagrant and public lie injures his reputation and possibly gets in some hot water with the bar.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the son is just repeating what Bishop told him, he may not be lying at all. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

What am I looking at here regarding her criminal history?  How is her specific criminal history motive in this case?  What is her specific criminal history?  

Big if.  I could say the opposite, if she's not a shakedown artist...  It doesn't speak to motive.

Agreed.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you want to substantiate the allegation that she is a shakedown artist...yes. 

At the cost of disclosing the woman's identity?  No, thanks.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Or are we simply going to assume things about those cases? 

Well, we're making some assumptions about the allegations against Bro. Bishop.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

What was that you were saying about presumption of innocence...doesn't apply to her?

Sure it does.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree, but you simply have not demonstrated that she is a shakedown artist.  That is your dilemma.

I'm not interested in demonstrating it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

You have to go where your heart and mind and life takes you.

That's a very painful process, as it turns out.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

What am I looking at here regarding her criminal history?  How is her specific criminal history motive in this case? 

A criminal history of a witness would be admissible in court to impeach a witness if it was a felony or crime of moral turpitude if the conviction has happened in the last 10 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

That's a very painful process, as it turns out.

Indeed it is. But so worth it in the end. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

"The matter resurfaced in 2016 when the same individual contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado, and then again a few weeks ago in January 2018, when the Church was contacted by a lawyer representing her. He provided a copy of a recording that she had made of a conversation between her and 85-year-old Joseph Bishop in December 2017."

Why did a woman in Pleasant Grove contact a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado?

And why is she being represented by an Idaho (Coeur d'Alene) attorney?

Boy, I wonder if the "leak" came from a church employee.  That would be . . . bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

He was confused as to which one she was in the recording, thinking that she might have been the one who knew some bikers or might have been the one who had augmentation surgery.

I need to go back and reread this section again, but my impression was he didn't know someone with biker friends but makes a jump from intending to kill him to her having biker friends that will do the killing for her (he may not be able to imagine the woman as being able to do it, so he tries to imagine how it might happen and goes to biker gang).  It is a really random comment.  Iirc, it is "did you have biker friends?"  To me he is not asking if she was the one with biker friends, but exactly what he said...did she have biker friends (that she could use to attempt to kill him).

The breast augmentation comment seems similar to me.  She makes mention early she had very small breasts,  he can see what she looks like now, and it contradicts that so he assumes she has had breast augmentation.

It doesn't seem to me he is talking about other people, but 'reasoning' from her comments, trying to make it coherent for himself because he isn't really following the whole thing very well as she jumps around, gets really intense, etc.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Why did a woman in Pleasant Grove contact a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado?

And why is she being represented by an Idaho (Coeur d'Alene) attorney?

Boy, I wonder if the "leak" came from a church employee.  That would be . . . bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If the son is just repeating what Bishop told him, he may not be lying at all. 

It's not a matter of dad's say-so:

Quote

Joseph Bishop's attorney and son, Greg Bishop, provided 2News with his own reasons for doubting the woman's story. Bishop provided 2News with a list of nearly two dozen incidents stating the same woman made false accusations against individuals and companies. Those incidents include allegedly false allegations of rape, planted evidence, and personal injury. Some of those claims included documentation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of dad's say-so:

Thanks,

-Smac

I hadn’t heard that. I suppose it will all out in the end. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why did a woman in Pleasant Grove contact a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado?

And why is she being represented by an Idaho (Coeur d'Alene) attorney?

Boy, I wonder if the "leak" came from a church employee.  That would be . . . bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

She may have moved.  Someone may have recommended the lawyer or she used him before.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not interested in demonstrating it.

That's fine.  Then I stand by my original statement that there is no apparent motive (without relying on major assumptions with little evidence) until more information is revealed.