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

[provoman]

CFR: “[The Church] already knew Bishop was guilty.”

The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I am not claiming anything.  I am just stating that has been reported in the news.  It was the BYU police that made the report.  

 

I have read many of the nes articles too. I do not rcall a news article that stated The LDS Church was in possession of the Police report. Yes BYU Police Department was in possession of the report, the report was turned over to the County Attorney, but I do not recall that the LDS Church was in possession of.

It is an important clarification to be accurate about. So that is all I am asking is the reference that shows The LDS Church was in possession of the report.

[Exiled]

46 minutes ago, provoman said:

CFR: “[The Church] already knew Bishop was guilty.”

The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.

 

I have read many of the nes articles too. I do not rcall a news article that stated The LDS Church was in possession of the Police report. Yes BYU Police Department was in possession of the report, the report was turned over to the County Attorney, but I do not recall that the LDS Church was in possession of.

It is an important clarification to be accurate about. So that is all I am asking is the reference that shows The LDS Church was in possession of the report.

Don't you think that the BYU police dept. would report its findings, especially in a case like this, to the owner of the institution (the church)? I would assume if the BYU police came across any allegations of misconduct by a G.A. or the MTC president, or students, it would report its findings to someone at the church, if there is a potential for media coverage. My guess is that the church has a liason at Kirton McConckie to deal with such potential media matters, so its reputation can be protected.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Exiled

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think that the BYU police dept. would report it findings, especially in a case like this, to the owner of the institution (the church)? I would assume if the BYU police came across any allegations of misconduct by a G.A. or the MTC president, it would report its findings to someone at the church. My guess is that the church has someone who reviews any potential media story that the BYU police comes across, be it involving leaders or students.

After the honor code controversy, BYU police---which is a standard police dept according to the website---is probably careful about who they share info with. 

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think that the BYU police dept. would report it findings, especially in a case like this, to the owner of the institution (the church)? I would assume if the BYU police came across any allegations of misconduct by a G.A. or the MTC president, it would report its findings to someone at the church. My guess is that the church has someone who reviews any potential media story that the BYU police comes across, be it involving leaders or students.

Absent proof, it is irresponsible speculation. Specualtion that I tend to doubt is made with any good intent behind, but rather to bismirch the LDS Church.

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

Absent proof, it is irresponsible speculation. Specualtion that I tend to doubt is made with any good intent behind, but rather to bismirch the LDS Church.

Irresponsible because the speculation points to a conclusion you don't like?  I think the church acts like any corporation would in these situations and getting notified of potential media problems would seem to be high up on the list.  It also seems on par to get such notice when the church hired a law firm outside of Kirton McConckie to dig up the dirt on the woman.  The church is filled with smart people who take their job of protecting the reputation seriously.  So, I would be surprised if the BYU police didn't communicate with its corporate head.  Return and report, right?  When I was on my mission, a missionary who couldn't swim died when he got too close to the crashing waves on this rocky point.  He was swept out to sea unfortunately and died.  My mission president reported it to SLC, as was his duty, and caught an earful from an apostle over the telephone.  The apostle called because it was his business to be involved in these types of damage control matters.  But in the case of the Mr. "non-consentual immorality" MTC president, there wasn't any communication by the BYU police to church headquarters?  I guess you can believe what you want.

[Calm]

The church may have received the redacted version earlier than it was released to the press. I do not know how much info was there.

However, unless they are lying, they received the unredacted at the same time as everyone else:

from the mormonnewsroom article

"On Wednesday, the Church, along with media outlets, received the unredacted police report from BYU Police, which included an admission of inappropriate sexual conduct. We are committed to bringing accountability for what has occurred."

 

 

 

[Calm]

If the redacted version is the one on mormonleaks, there is little information from Bishop's police interview. I am reading in my phone so may have missed it, but I didn't see any admission about asking her to expose her breasts though it had the summary where it said the two interviews were relatively consistent except when it came to the claim of rape.

 

[Exiled]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

The church may have received the redacted version earlier than it was released to the press. I do not know how much info was there.

However, unless they are lying, they received the unredacted at the same time as everyone else:

from the mormonnewsroom article

"On Wednesday, the Church, along with media outlets, received the unredacted police report from BYU Police, which included an admission of inappropriate sexual conduct. We are committed to bringing accountability for what has occurred."

 

 

 

Well, the first press release where the church pointed out that Bishop denied the allegations, when it certainly knew the truth, and pointed to negative aspects of the woman's past seems to point in the direction of a continued massage of the facts by the church.  But we are left to speculate as the church keeps its internal workings on this case close to the vest.

[provoman]

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Irresponsible because the speculation points to a conclusion you don't like?  I think the church acts like any corporation would in these situations and getting notified of potential media problems would seem to be high up on the list.  It also seems on par to get such notice when the church hired a law firm outside of Kirton McConckie to dig up the dirt on the woman.  The church is filled with smart people who take their job of protecting the reputation seriously.  So, I would be surprised if the BYU police didn't communicate with its corporate head.  Return and report, right?  When I was on my mission, a missionary who couldn't swim died when he got too close to the crashing waves on this rocky point.  He was swept out to sea unfortunately and died.  My mission president reported it to SLC, as was his duty, and caught an earful from an apostle over the telephone.  The apostle called because it was his business to be involved in these types of damage control matters.  But in the case of the Mr. "non-consentual immorality" MTC president, there wasn't any communication by the BYU police to church headquarters?  I guess you can believe what you want.

It is irresponsible because it simply is irresponsible.

But I can accept that some people want to defame an institution, because defaming the institution supports the conclusion desired. 

Making claims - as fact - in instances such as dicussed herein without proof, in my opinion, offers insight into the credibility of the speaker. 

 

[Exiled]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the redacted version is the one on mormonleaks, there is little information from Bishop's police interview. I am reading in my phone so may have missed it, but I didn't see any admission about asking her to expose her breasts though it had the summary where it said the two interviews were relatively consistent except when it came to the claim of rape.

 

Bottom of page 6 of 9.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Bottom of page 6 of 9.

And that page is completely redacted out in that original redacted version (I am confused by Mormonleaks version if there is more than one redacted report).  Which is what I was asking about...does anyone see  that info in the original redacted version.

iirc, the first announcement that uses "former" and "brief" came out on Tuesday, prior to the release of the mostly unredacted version on Wednesday.  Whenthe Church got the unredacted version, the release imo was stronger.

If Church leaders had none of Bishop's response available save in the summary due to the whole page being blacked out as it appears to me, I believe they had no reference to the breast exposure.  At that point, they would have had only a solid admission to lustful thoughts and a frisky backrub iirc.  Everything else in the tape was vague, "I don't remember", or limited pretty much to "yes" to her comments which given the claim of medication and denials could be suggested to be confusion and guilt over being less than perfect and trying to be agreeable and helpful.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

Don't you think that the BYU police dept. would report its findings, especially in a case like this, to the owner of the institution (the church)? I would assume if the BYU police came across any allegations of misconduct by a G.A. or the MTC president, or students, it would report its findings to someone at the church, if there is a potential for media coverage. My guess is that the church has a liason at Kirton McConckie to deal with such potential media matters, so its reputation can be protected.

A long time ago, churches used to do their own trials and punishment.  They called it the Inquisition.

Although we all have fond memories of it and  a good time was generally  had by all, It was decided later that it would be better to have the police power be reserved to the government and have the government do all of the investigating and punishing of criminals.

This was probably why the BYU police dept. reported its findings to the district attorneys office instead of Salt Lake. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A long time ago, churches used to do their own trials and punishment.  They called it the Inquisition.

Although we all have fond memories of it and  a good time was generally  had by all, It was decided later that it would be better to have the police power be reserved to the government and have the government do all of the investigating and punishing of criminals.

This was probably why the BYU police dept. reported its findings to the district attorneys office instead of Salt Lake. 

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of inconsistency in the expectations of what the Church is supposed to do.  There seems to be an ongoing implied expectation that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency.  Either that, or the Church is supposed to reflexively and unquestionably accept each and every allegation of misconduct, presume the guilt of the person accused, and discipline the individual accordingly.

I think a review of D&C 134:10 is appropriate:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of inconsistency in the expectations of what the Church is supposed to do.  There seems to be an ongoing implied expectation that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency.  Either that, or the Church is supposed to reflexively and unquestionably accept each and every allegation of misconduct, presume the guilt of the person accused, and discipline the individual accordingly.

I think a review of D&C 134:10 is appropriate:

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that there is some inconsistency here. The Church says that it is not equipped to investigate the claims of abuse yet it clearly investigated the accuser by putting together a dossier that was then leaked to the abuser's legal team and family. So is the church equipped to investigate or not? Do they have a dossier on Bishop? If they now have one, why did it take 30 years? Was a dossier put together as the regular course of business or only after it hit the fan and they recognized there was some serious PR damage done?

The inconsistency is with the church and who they (including their legal team) choose to investigate.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that there is some inconsistency here. The Church says that it is not equipped to investigate the claims of abuse yet it clearly investigated the accuser by putting together a dossier that was then leaked to the abuser's legal team and family. So is the church equipped to investigate or not? Do they have a dossier on Bishop? If they now have one, why did it take 30 years? Was a dossier put together as the regular course of business or only after it hit the fan and they recognized there was some serious PR damage done?

The inconsistency is with the church and who they (including their legal team) choose to investigate.

CFR please the dossier outside of church records  was put together by the Church and not the legal team, either the usual one or the outside one they said was doing the investigation.

I am wondering if I misread something.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

CFR please the dossier outside of church records  was put together by the Church and not the legal team, either the usual one or the outside one they said was doing the investigation.

I am wondering if I misread something.

Yes, you misread something because I am stating that the legal teams working on behalf of the church is the same thing as the church. It has also been stated that ecclesiastical records were included in the dossier which could only have come from church administration.

If the church is capable of having their legal team investigate, then the church has the ability to investigate. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with what has reportedly been done in this case.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, you misread something because I am stating that the legal teams working on behalf of the church is the same thing as the church. It has also been stated that ecclesiastical records were included in the dossier which could only have come from church administration.

If the church is capable of having their legal team investigate, then the church has the ability to investigate. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with what has reportedly been done in this case.

I know from experience that the Kirton-McConkie attorneys have access to Church records. They can confirm and verify that you are a bishop when you call (and that your claimed ward matches), and they can look up membership records pertaining to the call. They have even told me that they will then and there annotate a membership record for cause (normally, a stake president letter is necessary), and they keep a record of calls regarding molestation or abuse (for good reason --- it's good to know that they can correlate a current call with a call years ago from a different bishop).

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I know from experience that the Kirton-McConkie attorneys have access to Church records. They can confirm and verify that you are a bishop when you call (and that your claimed ward matches), and they can look up membership records pertaining to the call. They have even told me that they will then and there annotate a membership record for cause (normally, a stake president letter is necessary), and they keep a record of calls regarding molestation or abuse (for good reason --- it's good to know that they can correlate a current call with a call years ago from a different bishop).

Didn't do much good when my bishop was called after I had previously called Kirton/McConkie about abuse in the home. Apparently they didn't correlate that with a request to the First Presidency to call this person as bishop. That would have been helpful.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Didn't do much good when my bishop was called after I had previously called Kirton/McConkie about abuse in the home. Apparently they didn't correlate that with a request to the First Presidency to call this person as bishop. That would have been helpful.

That surprises me, given my experience, but I believe you. 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that there is some inconsistency here. The Church says that it is not equipped to investigate the claims of abuse

If here you mean the same way as civil authorities are "equipped to investigate," then no, the Church is not so equipped.  I think that was the Church's point.

Quote

yet it clearly investigated the accuser by putting together a dossier that was then leaked to the abuser's legal team and family.

First, as I understand it, the victim's attorney copied Joseph Bishop's attorney (who is also his son) on email communications about this matter.

Second, the "dossier" was prepared by a law firm at the request of the Church.  

Third, the "dossier" appears to have consisted mostly (entirely?) of researching publicly-accessible resources, such as the victim's past history in civil and criminal litigation matters.

Fourth, the "dossier" apparently gave rise to some reasonable grounds for questioning the overall credibility of the victim.  As the allegations against Joseph Bishop were, by that point, 30+ years old, the credibility of the accuser is an important consideration.  For example:

Quote

Greg Bishop said his father did not remember making that statement to police.

He also said the accuser's background is relevant because it includes multiple rape claims, false police reports and other manipulations.

As recently as February, the woman was arrested in New Mexico on suspicion of identity theft. According to a police report, she used an ex-boyfriend's name and Social Security number to obtain utility services and to lease an apartment. Detectives obtained a phone recording wherein the woman posed as the ex-boyfriend, using his name, according to the police report. That case is pending.

Another police report, from South Carolina, describes a 1999 case in which the woman claimed she was pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked. Detectives learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability. They concluded she was dishonest and her report "unfounded."

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt."

Fifth, the "dossier" was also apparently used as part of settlement discussions between the victim and the Church (I am open to correction on that point).  The scope and breadth of the Church's "investigation" was therefore wider than it otherwise would be.

Sixth, you seem to be proving my point: You really do want the Church to become sort sort of quasi-law enforcement / investigative agency.

Quote

So is the church equipped to investigate or not?

Not.  Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Quote

Do they have a dossier on Bishop?

"Dossier" has a nice Jason Bourne-esque whiff about it.

But yes, I imagine the Church has written reports about Bishop at this point.

Quote

If they now have one, why did it take 30 years?

Well, that's sort of a complex question.  The victim claims she met with Elder Asay 30+ years ago.  The Church has no record of such a meeting, and Elder Asay died in 1999.  We simply don't know if she met with him or not.  There was a also a disclosure to a bishop in the 1987, but the bishop admits he did not do anything with the allegation (he did not report it to law enforcement, or to the Church).  The victim has apparently claimed that "{s}tarting in 1998, she made multiple reports of the incident to the LDS Church," but this claim has not been clarified or substantiated so far (that I know of).  

IIRC, the next known disclosure was in 2010 to local leaders in Pleasant Grove, UT, which the local leaders investigated (to the extent they can) and passed the information on to law enforcement at that time.  The victim also threatened to kill Joseph Bishop in 2010, which may have clouded the issue.  In 2010 the second survivor also came forward.  By that point, however, Joseph Bishop was in his late 70s.  We don't really know whether the Church annotated his records at that point, or what his callings in the Church have been from 2010 to present.

Quote

Was a dossier put together as the regular course of business or only after it hit the fan and they recognized there was some serious PR damage done?

"The regular course of business" being . . . what?  A threatened lawsuit?

Quote

The inconsistency is with the church and who they (including their legal team) choose to investigate.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know from experience that the Kirton-McConkie attorneys have access to Church records.

Yes, I think you are correct.

However, as I recall, it was a separate law firm which compiled information about the purported survivor.

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

They can confirm and verify that you are a bishop when you call (and that your claimed ward matches), and they can look up membership records pertaining to the call. They have even told me that they will then and there annotate a membership record for cause (normally, a stake president letter is necessary), and they keep a record of calls regarding molestation or abuse (for good reason --- it's good to know that they can correlate a current call with a call years ago from a different bishop).

Such correlations were probably a bit more difficult to do effectively until somewhat recently (the last 10-15 years).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, you misread something because I am stating that the legal teams working on behalf of the church is the same thing as the church. It has also been stated that ecclesiastical records were included in the dossier which could only have come from church administration.

If the church is capable of having their legal team investigate, then the church has the ability to investigate. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with what has reportedly been done in this case.

So you think the Church should use their centralized legal team to investigate every local claim of abuse or crime rather than turning over to the local police where allowed?

To collect dossiers in each and every case even if there is no legal implication for the Church?  Because that would be the necessary starting point, imo.  You need to confirm dates, places, and times of people's actions and you can't do that without investigating the people.

What about confidentiality?  Should an investigation be done even if the only evidence is a confidential interview or two conflicting reports if that means dossiers on all involved will be made as part of the investigation?

 

PreNov 2017:  Church leadership interviewed Bishop and he denied any wrongdoing.  Two alleged victim statements were apparently made that we have no knowledge of the content and whether or not it gave avenues for investigation like the Spanish teacher.

Post Nov 2017:   police interviewed Bishop and he confessed.  They were given the Spanish teacher's name and were able to confirm part of her story.

PreNov 2017:  Church had no taped partial confession from Bishop.  We have no knowledge of any details outside the women's personal experience was shared, if there were details shared.

PostNov 2017:  BYU Police were given a tape that had Bishop partially confessing at least to lustful thoughts and one inappropriate physical contact with a sister missionary and hints of a lot more.

People seem to be thinking the situations before she went to the BYU Police with the taped interview, who finally got Bishop to admit to wrongdoing, were similar enough that the only reason there was no investigation was a desire to coverup.

Bishop continued to deny wrongdoing up to the tape and police interview and then switched back to denying as soon as he walked out it appears.

Greg Bishop stated that the second woman was not at the MTC at the same time as the first woman claims (she was there in 84, the second woman was there in 85).  He may be saying this from his own memory, but it would be easily checked with the women's church records so I wonder.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"There was a also a disclosure to a bishop in the 1987, but the bishop admits he did not do anything with the allegation (he did not report it to law enforcement, or to the Church)."

And the victim claims the meeting with Elder Asay resulted from her reporting to this bishop, iirc.  So if he really didn't report it, there could have been no followup meeting with Elder Asay.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you think the Church should use their centralized legal team to investigate every local claim of abuse or crime rather than turning over to the local police where allowed?

It merits mention that the "dossier" under discussion is "a letter that was written by David Jordan, a lawyer at the firm, Stoel Rives, acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," which document "is a response to a letter from the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, requesting a settlement from the LDS Church."  More info:

Quote

The document includes everything we saw in Bishop’s email, plus a review of her ecclesiastical church record. 

At the bottom, the Jordan indicates that he sent the letter to Greg Bishop.

It appears Bishop took portions of the letter, and at times, repeated allegations word for word and sent it to the media. 

At least three media outlets did stories based on the letter.

Jordan acknowledged that he wrote the letter and only sent it to Bishop because he had been included in an email chain by the accuser’s attorney. Jordan says he did not release the letter to the media.

Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas said the document was meant to be used for negotiating a possible settlement, releasing it was improper.

“It’s a little bit problematic to me that this kind of information is now released,” Skordas said.

Turner Bitton with the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault said even if the church didn’t put out the letter, the methods used in it are intended to silence accusers.

“It sends a message to that individual person, but to everyone else, that if you come forward we are going to dig through your past we're going to dig through your experiences who you are your very identity,” Bitton said.

Bitton also said the church has every right to collect the information it did on Bishop’s accuser, but said, the way they did it and what they collected, may not sit well with church members.

"The vast majority of people that I know that are people of faith who are don't want to see this kind of behavior,” he said. “What they don't want to see is the church engaging in a way that looks like a ruthless corporation at times."

Eric Hawkins, a spokesman with the LDS Church said in an email: “It is customary and acceptable for outside counsel to correspond with the attorneys representing other parties, including sharing information that may support or refute their claims."

In an emailed statement, Hawkins said:

Quote

As we've said in both statements, our work to address this matter has included the work of outside legal counsel to interview and investigate the facts and allegations. This requires access to membership information. During this process, it is customary and acceptable for outside counsel to correspond with the attorneys representing other parties, including sharing information that may support or refute their claims.

But it's also important to not confuse the legal and ecclesiastical lines. Attorneys are doing the legal work, and that has contributed substantially to what we understand about this case. But ecclesiastical decisions about Church members remain in the hands of local leaders, whose responsibility it is to determine how to minister to, discipline and care for the members in their stewardship.

 

In other words, the "dossier" was a legal document, not an ecclesiastical one.

An important distinction, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas said the document was meant to be used for negotiating a possible settlement, releasing it was improper."

This is an awkward sentence.  It makes more sense imo if it is missing an "if":

Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas said if the document was meant to be used for negotiating a possible settlement, releasing it was improper.

I assume he means releasing to the media and not the parties involved.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm