KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It may explain why Bishop's son is trying to discredit the victim, but it was the church that developed the dirt on the victim even though they knew that the event very likely happened.  Second woman, secret room, confession from Bishop, etc.  Does not the victim deserve restitution from the church without impunity?  Or should she first be dragged through the dirt before her request is addressed.  

These are the things that I find disgusting about not just the Mormon church and how it has acted, but other churches that have done similar things.  And people are wringing their hands wondering why so many are leaving organized religion.  For a group that claims to be so close to the voice of God, I find no evidence of that or of trying to do the right thing even when they certainly had enough information to act more appropriately than what was done.  This just reinforces my own personal experience with church leaders.  

My complaint was that it is not clear at all that the scenario you paint is in fact correct.  Had the article been well-sourced and well-written, we might have some confidence that the statements made are actually true, and we might even be able to assign blame to named parties.  As it is, we cannot.

As to your experience with Church leaders, aren't we being somewhat anecdotal?  I vividly recall Chuck Larson testifying to his small evangelical group in Provo that his excommunication trial was indeed the "court of love" described by the Church.  I was surprised because I had so often heard bitter lies from ex-Mormons.  The hate out there is so strong that almost anything might be said against Mormons, as it was by Walter Martin and many other evangelicals.  I always prefer to hear dispassionate and accurate accounts of whatever wrongdoing the Mormons are guilty of.  I say, let the chips fall where they may, but please let it be based on the facts, not on wild speculation or hate.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder how hard it would be send all the sister missionaries that served during his tenure an email. Certainly seems just as easy as hiring counsel to dig dirt up on the victim. 

Good idea.  The problem is that this was back in 1984, and memories fade over time.

Then too, who in fact came up with the brilliant idea of creating a dossier on the victim?  Someone at the legal firm which represents the Church?  Dr Phil does it all the time for his program, which often features liars of various kinds.  No investigation is complete without a full background on all principals.  Millions of dollars in tithing money are regularly expended on such cases.

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

The legal system might encourage bad behavior, but it doesn't dictate bad behavior

That is not what amoral means.

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

And one more time.  Is her claim of abuse still up for debate when the perp confessed to the police and again on tape?

A bit of a topic shift....   Do you still not understand that once it is in the legal arena it is the rules not the truth that matters? You continue to conflate the two and then rage about her biggest defenders here not believing her. Really, catch up. 

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jeremy Scott was seeking a settlement of 1.5 billion in the case where his mother put him in a double bed with a man his bishop,had advised against taking in.

I don't think one should assume all victims ask for reasonable amounts in settlements and it is understandable why they wouldn't in abuse cases.  

Maybe I am missing something here.  And that is why I really like interacting with you.  I know you always set me straight on these issues.  

First of all, yes, not everyone is reasonable in the amount they want for a settlement on these types of issues.  But this is what I am not quite understanding.  Is this still a case of he said/she said?  If so, then I can see how her past legal issues that pertain to this case would be important to bring up.  Is she making this up?  Or is this a scam she is running to extort money from the church.

But in this case, is there not a confession by Bishop to the police that is on record?  Do we not have a tape where he admits sexual abuse of multiple women?  Do we not have another woman's testimony of sexual abuse by Bishop?

What has not been determined is whether she actually met with Elder Assay.  The church says they have no record of such a meeting. She is claiming that she did.  Now, how does all the dirt they dug up on her prove that she did not meet with Elder Assay?  What would be worth discovery on is if in fact she met with her bishop and he remembers.  Whether she met with her stake president and he remembers.  Can you see whether she has been sexually assaulted more than once doesn't seem to answer whether she met with Elder Assay?   

This is what I am talking about when I say, digging up dirt is a choice and is often used to blackmail the accuser in coming forth rather than finding the truth of what actually happened in this case.  It also seem irrelevant to the amount she might ask.  

Perhaps I should just let this go and accept the fact that the church has no problem approving these kinds of dirty tricks to minimize their financial loss.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What is utterly dishonest is claims that leaders use some magical spirit of discernment in making callings and decisions in the church.  It is not DBMormon who stated these claims, it is the church, over and over again.  

Do you believe that such claims should stop immediately Robert?  Or should this claim continue and issues like this one swept under the carpet and pretend they never happened.

Perhaps the reason we have "sunk to a low and craven position" is because our own lives have been affected by such claims when in fact, they were totally unjustified.  We aren't talking about one single incident.  We are talking about a string of incidents that went on for 30 plus years, over and over again. 

I also might add, that list that DBMormon includes much more than just the issue of discernment.  Are you going to defend all the other points as well?  Should the church be digging up all the dirt it can on the victim that they in all reasonablity knew was telling the truth?  At what point is the church going to take responsibility for some of this?  Is this really how you want your church to respond to these kinds of events?  I am just wondering why you haven't accused the church of sinking to a low and craven position.  Instead you attack a person that is asking real questions that absolutely should be answered.

My preference is that we have the facts before we take the Robespierre approach you seem to prefer.

I believe in inspiration and revelation, but not in the childish version of that which you and Bill apparently share.  I have already made it clear that I want a coherent, factual report of who did what and when, before I jump to conclusions.  That calls for self-restraint and a kind of even-handed appraisal which Bill seems unable to do -- indeed he habitually takes an anti-scholarly approach, assuming that one needs to know nothing at all in order to make omniscient declarations.   If your only objective is hate, that is O.K. I suppose . . .

[provoman]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

And one more time.  Is her claim of abuse still up for debate when the perp confessed to the police and again on tape?

Can you show that the Police report was in the possession of the Church negotiation team and/or in the possesion of the victim AND was part of the settlement negotiations?

Can you show his confession/admission of rape?

Now before the borish discussion ending “victim blaming” accusations start, those points you raise are important points.

Lastly, if settlement negotiations have ceased, there hasn’t been much offered showing the legal basis for filing a civil suit - that is statute of limitations - I look forward to reading the suit only for the legal theories offered therein.

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My complaint was that it is not clear at all that the scenario you paint is in fact correct.  Had the article been well-sourced and well-written, we might have some confidence that the statements made are actually true, and we might even be able to assign blame to named parties.  As it is, we cannot.

As to your experience with Church leaders, aren't we being somewhat anecdotal?  I vividly recall Chuck Larson testifying to his small evangelical group in Provo that his excommunication trial was indeed the "court of love" described by the Church.  I was surprised because I had so often heard bitter lies from ex-Mormons.  The hate out there is so strong that almost anything might be said against Mormons, as it was by Walter Martin and many other evangelicals.  I always prefer to hear dispassionate and accurate accounts of whatever wrongdoing the Mormons are guilty of.  I say, let the chips fall where they may, but please let it be based on the facts, not on wild speculation or hate.

Well Chuck Larson is not the only one who has testified that his excommunication trial was indeed a "court of love". I too have testified on this very board that I felt I was treated very fairly and with love and compassion when I was excommunicated.  I knew most of the men on that court.  I had severed with most of them on the high counsel.  After delivering the verdict, each one of these brothers stood up and I went around and embraced me and wished me the very best.  They new what I wanted in my life was not compatible with the requirements of membership.  I knew as well.  

My distrust for church leaders speaking under claims of inspiration from God occurred way earlier than that when I was just off my mission and I was told to marry a woman and if I did, I was promised in the name of God that I would no longer be gay.  Yeah.  God made no such promise.  They claimed inspiration/revelation from something that never happened.  This whole mess just confirms to me that church leaders do not have some kind of power of discernment or revelation from God.  Those claims should stop, or they should be demonstrable.  So which is it.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is not what amoral means.

A bit of a topic shift....   Do you still not understand that once it is in the legal arena it is the rules not the truth that matters? You continue to conflate the two and then rage about her biggest defenders here not believing her. Really, catch up. 

I think this is a good spot for me to leave you.  We clearly have different views of integrity even when it comes to legal matters.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can you show that the Police report was in the possession of the Church negotiation team and/or in the possesion of the victim AND was part of the settlement negotiations?

Can you show his confession/admission of rape?

Now before the borish discussion ending “victim blaming” accusations start, those points you raise are important points.

Lastly, if settlement negotiations have ceased, there hasn’t been much offered showing the legal basis for filing a civil suit - that is statute of limitations - I look forward to reading the suit only for the legal theories offered therein.

Wait.  You are now saying that the church probably did not have a copy of the police report but they did manage to have all this dirt on her?  Even when she told the church that she went to the police?  They wouldn't bother to chase down the police report before digging into all the dirt?  Yikes.  That just makes this whole mess even worse.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My preference is that we have the facts before we take the Robespierre approach you seem to prefer.

I believe in inspiration and revelation, but not in the childish version of that which you and Bill apparently share.  I have already made it clear that I want a coherent, factual report of who did what and when, before I jump to conclusions.  That calls for self-restraint and a kind of even-handed appraisal which Bill seems unable to do -- indeed he habitually takes an anti-scholarly approach, assuming that one needs to know nothing at all in order to make omniscient declarations.   If your only objective is hate, that is O.K. I suppose . . .

You had to go to the hate card huh.  Is this how you discredit the questions I am asking?  

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am missing something here.  And that is why I really like interacting with you.  I know you always set me straight on these issues.  

First of all, yes, not everyone is reasonable in the amount they want for a settlement on these types of issues.  But this is what I am not quite understanding.  Is this still a case of he said/she said?  If so, then I can see how her past legal issues that pertain to this case would be important to bring up.  Is she making this up?  Or is this a scam she is running to extort money from the church.

But in this case, is there not a confession by Bishop to the police that is on record?  Do we not have a tape where he admits sexual abuse of multiple women?  Do we not have another woman's testimony of sexual abuse by Bishop?

What has not been determined is whether she actually met with Elder Assay.  The church says they have no record of such a meeting. She is claiming that she did.  Now, how does all the dirt they dug up on her prove that she did not meet with Elder Assay?  What would be worth discovery on is if in fact she met with her bishop and he remembers.  Whether she met with her stake president and he remembers.  Can you see whether she has been sexually assaulted more than once doesn't seem to answer whether she met with Elder Assay?   

This is what I am talking about when I say, digging up dirt is a choice and is often used to blackmail the accuser in coming forth rather than finding the truth of what actually happened in this case.  It also seem irrelevant to the amount she might ask.  

Perhaps I should just let this go and accept the fact that the church has no problem approving these kinds of dirty tricks to minimize their financial loss.

Recordings can be very problematic as evidence. Even when done by law enforcement agencies. If it is anything like the jurisdiction I last read up a case like this the recording may not be even be admissible.

 

To be clear I do think he did something horrible and, if I am right, I hope she sues him out of everything he owns though I am not sure if that will happen. I am less sure the church organization is financially culpable.

[Danzo]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am missing something here.  And that is why I really like interacting with you.  I know you always set me straight on these issues.  

First of all, yes, not everyone is reasonable in the amount they want for a settlement on these types of issues.  But this is what I am not quite understanding.  Is this still a case of he said/she said?  If so, then I can see how her past legal issues that pertain to this case would be important to bring up.  Is she making this up?  Or is this a scam she is running to extort money from the church.

But in this case, is there not a confession by Bishop to the police that is on record?  Do we not have a tape where he admits sexual abuse of multiple women?  Do we not have another woman's testimony of sexual abuse by Bishop?

What has not been determined is whether she actually met with Elder Assay.  The church says they have no record of such a meeting. She is claiming that she did.  Now, how does all the dirt they dug up on her prove that she did not meet with Elder Assay?  What would be worth discovery on is if in fact she met with her bishop and he remembers.  Whether she met with her stake president and he remembers.  Can you see whether she has been sexually assaulted more than once doesn't seem to answer whether she met with Elder Assay?   

This is what I am talking about when I say, digging up dirt is a choice and is often used to blackmail the accuser in coming forth rather than finding the truth of what actually happened in this case.  It also seem irrelevant to the amount she might ask.  

Perhaps I should just let this go and accept the fact that the church has no problem approving these kinds of dirty tricks to minimize their financial loss.

My understanding is that there is a confession by Bishop, but not to the crime (or tort) alleged. (she said it was rape, he said it was consensual and there was no rape). This might not make any difference to those who think Bishop's actions were evil anyway, but it does make a big difference in the law.  So there are facts that are in dispute. Credibility of witness (either him or her) could be contested by issues relating to reliability of said witnesses.

Also, It is my understanding that Bishop retracted his confession after confessing to the police (This is done quite often for various reasons)

His statements will be available to a court (if it proceeds that far) for him to clarify or refute.  Hearsay rules allow for admissions by parties (he is a party) so both his taped confession by the alleged victim and his statement by the police should be admissible. (Baring some type of coercion or other bad behavior by the police)

The sharing of the information about the victim,seems to have been done before the church was made aware of full police report, so at the time the information was shared, the church was probably still investigation the credibility of the victim.  Since the facts are not agreed upon by all parties, credibility could be a major part of any legal proceeding.

As a legal professional, I am still curious about how the plaintiffs are going to manage getting around the statute of limitations.  The victim was an adult when the incident happened and made a report to her ecclesiastical leader 30 years ago. That, in my belief would have started the running of the statute.  Most of the statutes extending the statute of limitations for these types of torts only make exceptions to for minors, or, when the victim became aware of the abuse.     I don't practice in this area, so I could be wrong.  

Most of these cases are settled and we probably won't know the final result.  One of the things that tripped up the victim in this case might have been the mormonleaks disclosure.  Since the statue might have already run out the victim may have been negotiating a settlement with her silence as part of the price of the settlement. Since that is no longer an option,  she has less to offer in a settlement than she would have otherwise, and may end up with less because of it.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Danzo

[Calm]

"What has not been determined is whether she actually met with Elder Assay.  The church says they have no record of such a meeting. She is claiming that she did.  Now, how does all the dirt they dug up on her prove that she did not meet with Elder Assay"

It does not prove it one way or the other.

It is a "he said, she said" between .the former Bishop Leavitt and her.  He says he never reported it, so there would have been no reason for Elder Asay to contact her.

Therefore credibility of the witness matters and would be part of the settlement discussions and if no settlement was reached, would then possibly be used to impeach her credibility once she testifies.

Whether or not she has been sexually assaulted more than once may have no bearing, but whether or not she has tried to extort money from others or committed criminal acts does.

Part of her complaint as far as I can tell is the Church leadership did not believe and did nothing for her even while knowing at least at Elder Asay's level.  This is significantly different than her speaking in 1987 with one low level bishop who had no impact on future callings or promotion of Bishop as a role model through Ensign articles and DB books.

So it is relevant to her own settlement case...at least three parts, probably more...1) Bishop's abuse 2) The Church not protecting her from Bishop in the first place, and 3) the Church's reactions overtime to her reports.  1 is probably settled (actually not, getting tired and skipped the dispute over rape...that he did abuse her in some fashion is denied by Bishop, but backed up by police report).  2 will depend on what is expected of a church as well as what clues prior to the attack were out there.  Unless she has made claims we don't know of---which may be possible, remember we have only the interview tape between her and Bishop and the police report---2 will depend on investigations and laws that have nothing to do with the victim/witness.  3 is very dependent on whether or not she met with Asay.  Without any record of the meeting, it is solely her word which is challenged by former Bishop Leavitt.  

Therefore her credibility is an issue since she is also being a witness.

In addition, if her claim of having told Asay is found to be credible, this means a top LDS leader knowing of at least one accusation did nothing to prevent future abuse by Bishop and likely opens up the Church to more lawsuits by others claiming they trusted Bishop due to his Church connections, etc. (And this very well may be true, I am among those who believe other victims are likely to come forward...I am surprised none have, but it is possible some have contacted the Church and they are sitting on it, either for PR, legal advantage, or because the victim asked them not to share the info, or something else I can't think of.)

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Recordings can be very problematic as evidence. Even when done by law enforcement agencies. If it is anything like the jurisdiction I last read up a case like this the recording may not be even be admissible.

 

To be clear I do think he did something horrible and, if I am right, I hope she sues him out of everything he owns though I am not sure if that will happen. I am less sure the church organization is financially culpable.

I have yet to hear a denial from Mr. Bishop on what was recorded.  Have you?  And clearly, his son at least, has no problem talking to the press, at least when it comes to feeding dirt on the victim.

  Like you, I am not sure the church is liable either.  It really depends on who she told and what they did with that information.  I don't have any problem using discovery to understand what happened relating to that issue.  It's the dirt I don't like.  Collecting information to smear someone's credibility doesn't seem to be relevant in finding the answers to those issues.  That is what is so disappointing.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

My understanding is that there is a confession by Bishop, but not to the crime (or tort) alleged. (she said it was rape, he said it was consensual and there was no rape). This might not make any difference to those who think Bishop's actions were evil anyway, but it does make a big difference in the law.  So there are facts that are in dispute. Credibility of witness (either him or her) could be contested by issues relating to reliability of said witnesses.

Also, It is my understanding that Bishop retracted his confession after confessing to the police (This is done quite often for various reasons)

His statements will be available to a court (if it proceeds that far) for him to clarify or refute.  Hearsay rules allow for admissions by parties (he is a party) so both his taped confession by the alleged victim and his statement by the police should be admissible. (Baring some type of coercion or other bad behavior by the police)

The sharing of the information about the victim,seems to have been done before the church was made aware of full police report, so at the time the information was shared, the church was probably still investigation the credibility of the victim.  Since the facts are not agreed upon by all parties, credibility could be a major part of any legal proceeding.

As a legal professional, I am still curious about how the plaintiffs are going to manage getting around the statute of limitations.  The victim was an adult when the incident happened and made a report to her ecclesiastical leader 30 years ago. That, in my belief would have started the running of the statute.  Most of the statutes extending the statute of limitations for these types of torts only make exceptions to for minors, or, when the victim became aware of the abuse.     I don't practice in this area, so I could be wrong.  

Most of these cases are settled and we probably won't know the final result.  One of the things that tripped up the victim in this case might have been the mormonleaks disclosure.  Since the statue might have already run out the victim may have been negotiating a settlement with her silence as part of the price of the settlement. Since that is no longer an option,  she has less to offer in a settlement than she would have otherwise, and may end up with less because of it.

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

"What has not been determined is whether she actually met with Elder Assay.  The church says they have no record of such a meeting. She is claiming that she did.  Now, how does all the dirt they dug up on her prove that she did not meet with Elder Assay"

It does not prove it one way or the other.

It is a "he said, she said" between .the former Bishop Leavitt and her.  He says he never reported it, so there would have been no reason for Elder Asay to contact her.

Therefore credibility of the witness matters and would be part of the settlement discussions and if no settlement was reached, would then possibly be used to impeach her credibility once she testifies.

Part of her complaint as far as I can tell is the Church leadership did not believe and did nothing for her even while knowing at least at Elder Asay's level.  This is significantly different than her speaking in 1987 with one low level bishop who had no impact on future callings or promotion of Bishop as a role model through Ensign articles and DB books.

So it is relevant to her own settlement case...at least three parts, probably more...1) Bishop's abuse 2) The Church not protecting her from Bishop in the first place, and 3) the Church's reactions overtime to her reports.  1 is probably settled.  2 will depend on what is expected of a church as well as what clues prior to the attack were out there.  Unless she has made claims we don't know of---which may be possible, remember we have only the interview tape between her and Bishop---2 will depend on investigations and laws that have nothing to do with the victim/witness.  3 is very dependent on whether or not she met with Asay.  Without any record of the meeting, it is solely her word which is challenged by former Bishop Leavitt.  

Therefore her credibility is an issue since she is also being a witness.

In addition, if her claim of having told Asay is found to be credible, this means a top LDS leader knowing of at least one accusation did nothing to prevent future abuse by Bishop and likely opens up the Church to more lawsuits by others claiming they trusted Bishop due to his Church connections, etc. (And this very well may be true, I am among those who believe other victims are likely to come forward...I am surprised none have, but it is possible some have contacted the Church and they are sitting on it, either for PR, legal advantage, or because the victim asked them not to share the info, or something else I can't think of.)

Thank you both for your comments.  I didn't understand that there were loose ends in the areas I have been talking about.  I am sure I am more emotional on this issue than I should be.  I guess I still wish I could trust church leaders to do the right thing.  Maybe that is just never going to happen for me.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  You are now saying that the church probably did not have a copy of the police report but they did manage to have all this dirt on her?  Even when she told the church that she went to the police?  They wouldn't bother to chase down the police report before digging into all the dirt?  Yikes.  That just makes this whole mess even worse.

If they didn't have the police report (which iirc, was not given to them until the week it was made public but it might have been earlier...the tape was given to the Church in January), there would have been doubt about whether Bishop attempted to rape her or not since he never admitted that in the interview.

So it would have been much more a he said, she said situation and knowing her background matters then, especially whether or not she ever tried to extort money through false claims as well as made false accusations about rape.  

If there had been no evidence of any criminal behaviour on her part and no false accusations, then there would be less questioning of her claims.

However, it does appear she attempted to extort money as well as was recently involved in identity theft (which means she can't claim these were past issues resulting from abuse that are now resolved so should be ignored in determining whether she is telling the truth now).

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

You had to go to the hate card huh.  Is this how you discredit the questions I am asking?  

Funny how that happens. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have yet to hear a denial from Mr. Bishop on what was recorded.  Have you?  And clearly, his son at least, has no problem talking to the press, at least when it comes to feeding dirt on the victim.

There was no admission to rape or attempted rape on the tape.

His lawyer, Greg Bishop, speaking for his client stated his dad was only describing lustful thoughts that are the same as other males and one consensual backrub that went nowhere and on,y happened after the woman asked him  number of times.  Since Joseph Bishop is refusing to talk to reporters, appears to know what is going on since he kicked out a reporter as soon as the subject was brought up, and appears to be competent enough from the tape to register what is happening, I don't see why we shouldn't assume his lawyer is acting under his instructions to deny anything criminal or really immoral.

IIrc, the dectective involved stated the police interviews lined up except in regards to the rape.  Bishop only admitted to asking her to expose her breasts.  With the alleged rape, Bishop stated to police iirc he didn't remember or she exaggerated.  His son, his legal representative took it much further.  He said Bishop was confused, both in the case of the tape (he was on medications) and in the police interview.  Otoh, he also said his dad was mentally really with it for his age...demonstrating yet again J Bishop isn't likely saving money by getting pro bono from his son.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Thank you both for your comments.  I didn't understand that there were loose ends in the areas I have been talking about.

I would encourage you to ask questions first before condemning.  I get mistrust, but better to mistrust over things that actually happened than chew your heart out over things that haven't.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would encourage you to ask questions first before condemning.  I get mistrust, but better to mistrust over things that actually happened than chew your heart out over things that haven't.

I have never liked the idea of digging up dirt on someone who has been sexually abused.  It just seems wrong.  I think there are other ways to determine credibility.  They get put on trial instead of the predator.

Edited April 1, 2018 by california boy

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have yet to hear a denial from Mr. Bishop on what was recorded.  Have you?  And clearly, his son at least, has no problem talking to the press, at least when it comes to feeding dirt on the victim.

  Like you, I am not sure the church is liable either.  It really depends on who she told and what they did with that information.  I don't have any problem using discovery to understand what happened relating to that issue.  It's the dirt I don't like.  Collecting information to smear someone's credibility doesn't seem to be relevant in finding the answers to those issues.  That is what is so disappointing.

I would assume if claims are disputed and records lacking, one of the first steps would be to find out if someone has been involved in false accusations and extortion.  It seems much less like gathering dirt and much more like intelligent investigation of disputed claims.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never liked the idea of digging up dirt on someone who has been sexually abused.  It just seems wrong.  I think there are other ways to determine credibility.  They get put on trial instead of the predator.

You don't think it matters to find out if someone has extorted money or not before?

How do you think one could determine credibility without investigating?  Serious question, I am trying to understand you.  The only thing I can think of is challenging them on the stand or in depositions with showing inconsistencies in their testimony.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm

[rpn]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is normal settlement stuff. You show a bit of your hand to ****er and see if you can work something out without a trial. What is so shocking about this other than that Bishop’s son is a moron?

I found the report strange too, and the links did not lead to the material it refers to, so it is impossible to tell exactly what the church did.

But part of the problem is that the Church should NOT necessarily be doing "normal settlement stuff".   Of course one does opposition research, but forwarding that to the perp's representative (who shouldn't BE part of the Church's negotiating team at all) does seem like the church wanted the perp's representative to besmirch the women's reputation (which is the stuff of evil, however much it may be done in legal circles).   It does appear that the transference to the perp's rep might have been a "reply to all" issue rather than an intentional "give you ammunition because you're on our team", though.

Critical perceptions that the church claimed they couldn't investigate because they don't have the resources, when they found the time/money to do the background check doesn't help its case.   (Those who practice will tell you that running someone's name through westlaw and lexis data bases which turn up criminal histories and court dealings doesn't take longer than a few hours and costs less than $200, so doing it doesn't actually mean the church lied about not having sufficient investigate resources.)   And I'd argue that It was s likely incompetent if church lawyers released the material in settlement without a confidentiality agreement --- and the release is at least smarmy because whether she had problems with the law or with others abusing her is irrelevant to whether the MP perped, which he actually acknowledges.

I so much wish that the Church would simply require his excommunication, communicate that it has happened to the public, told bishops and stake presidents that they must report every allegation of bad acts by any church member involving another member to a hotline that has been designed to identify similar patterns and send the info to an area President for following up, and that they must believe the one reporting it in the first instance, including holding a disciplinary counsel and allowing the reporter to tell their story to that council. and including suggested witnesses.   (If the first bishop had referred to a council and the council had heard the MTC instructor or even other missionaries who apparently commented on the extraordinary interest the MP was taking in her, and someone had asked the janitors at the MTC about the second office, and the weber state dean might have spoken about the perp's telling her that he would lie to get himself out of accountability for what he did in another council.there would have been sufficient corroboration.)

[Danzo]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Thank you both for your comments.  I didn't understand that there were loose ends in the areas I have been talking about.  I am sure I am more emotional on this issue than I should be.  I guess I still wish I could trust church leaders to do the right thing.  Maybe that is just never going to happen for me.

I often have a hard time doing the right thing myself. Often I believe people when I shouldn't and don't believe people when I should.  You'd be surprised how often people bend the truth, even "good mornons" when it comes to taxes(my area of practice),  so I can understand when other people have a hard time deciding who and what to believe as well.

I makes me upset when I catch a person lying to me, especially after I have told their lie( unknowingly) to others.

Other times I turn people away because I find their stories too unbelievable. But maybe they are telling the truth.

[flameburns623]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That would be a very dumb thing to do with litigation pending.

Matthew 5: 25:

King James Bible
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Christian Standard Bible
Reach a settlement quickly with your adversary while you're on the way with him to the court, or your adversary will hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison.