LDS Church May Be Facing More Lawsuits Over Sexual Abuse And Inaction

[Calm]

"Denson extracting a false confession from Bishop is problematic."

You are assuming it is false.  Where is your evidence?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Denson extracting a false confession from Bishop is problematic."

You are assuming it is false.  Where is your evidence?

As I said previously, I am open to correction on this.  But I don't think it's an assumption.  I laid out my reasoning here:

Quote

Quote

He says, he confessed, while a mission president (starting in 1979) "all" that he had done, the context of all that he had done is molesting girls/women. 

The "context" is rather muddled.  We don't know to what he "confessed," except that he felt they were his "sins" (p. 26).  But the "context" appears to be a confession to Elder Wells while he was a mission president, which was years before he became president of the MTC.  And yet on p. 33 we get this exchange:

Quote

Denson: So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?
Bishop: Yes.
Denson: You talked about what you did with me and other women?
Bishop: Yes.

Now contrast the above "confession" with the allegations in the lawsuit:

Quote

The lawsuit claims while serving as president of the Buenos Aries North Argentina Mission in 1978, Bishop confessed sins and improprieties to Robert E. Wells, who was then a general authority over the region.

It looks like Denson has created a real problem in her narrative.  She says in the lawsuit that "Bishop confessed sins and improprieties to Robert E. Wells" in 1978, but in the recording she has Bishop admitting that his confession to Wells included his (Bishop's) abuse of Denson, which happened years after 1978.

In other words, the recording appears to include . . . a false confession.  Bishop purpotedly confesses in 1978 to abuse of Denson which did not occur until 1984.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

I posted a long post on this (new revelation thread perhaps?) demonstrating she did not know the timing of the confession when she asked him if he confessed to her abuse to Wells (he has already told her he had gone on 2 1/2 missions, including Welfare Mission 94-96 after the MTC, he has not yet identified which mission he confessed on)  Later in the interview after the timing was straightened out (he details the confession came after his mission baptisms increased from 70-400 and he was troubled  by evil spirits after helping a sister missionary who was possessed by them so he confessed to Wells to save his soul,) Bishop  actually starts to claim he confessed about her and she corrected him saying he couldn't because that was when he was a MP before the MTC.

Quote

Bishop:  And in the middle of this [the increase of baptisms discussed on page 70] I had a sister missionary who was besieged with evil spirits. I've never experienced them before. Didn't know they existed, but they do.

Denson:  I know that.

Bishop:  They attacked me. So in this process trying to save my soul, I said, "Okay, well, I need to tell you everything." And Iwent back as far back as memory could ... I think Italked about you. 

Denson:  You couldn't have 'cause you were MTC president after Argentina.

Bishop:  Ithink I...

Denson:Okay.

Bishop:  All Ican say is Itried to talk about anything that I've ever done, and you said to me, "Haven't you said this some of the answers? The answer's yes. To this patient one thing. To this patient another thing. To this patient another thing. Now, I've got a general authority [inaudible 02:32:54) I wasn't trying to hide anything at that particular- 

Page 71

I will link to it if you haven't seen it yet.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Here is the post where I pulled up every instance Bishop used "confess" or a variation:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209810743

Your quote is on page 33, previously to that he has told her he confessed on page 26 or 7 but not when.  He had told her Elder Wells was a friend for 40 years and there were three missions the confession could have happened on since it is vague:

Quote

Denson:  You confessed about me?
Bishop:  I don't know about I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission.  But anyway, let me apologize.

There is no attempt to pinpoint a date at that time or any time before your quote on page 33.

It does get pinned down on page 70-71 as when he was mission president.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

I posted a long post on this (new revelation thread perhaps?) demonstrating she did not know the timing of the confession when she asked him if he confessed to her abuse to Wells

Okay.  But the point is that he says that he did "confess to her abuse to Wells."  That appears to be a false confession.

Quote

(he has already told her he had gone on 2 1/2 missions, including Welfare Mission 94-96 after the MTC, he has not yet identified which mission he confessed on) 

So she was confused.  And he was confused.  And she still extracted a false confession from him.

Quote

Later in the interview after the timing was straightened out (he details the confession came after his mission baptisms increased from 70-400 and he was troubled  by evil spirits after helping a sister missionary who was possessed by them so he confessed to Wells to save his soul,) Bishop  actually starts to claim he confessed about her and she corrected him saying he couldn't because that was when he was a MP before the MTC.

She corrected what was shaping up to be a second false confession (on p. 71)?  How does that rehabilitate the first false confession which she extracted from him earlier in the recording?

Quote

Page 71

I will link to it if you haven't seen it yet.

I'd like to see the link.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point though.  Page 33 of the transcript appears to include a false confession which Denson extracted from Bishop.  Page 71 appears to include a second false confession, or something close to it.  The second one doesn't fix the first.  If anything, it compounds my concerns about the reliability of the recording as competent, probative, admissible evidence against Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

If you are saying he is not a reliable witness and is all over the place trying to please her while not committing himself to anything solid, I agree with you.

If you are claiming she is intentionally trying to get him to falsely confess, I don't see any solid evidence of that.  She is just as likely to be a poor interrogator in the sense of avoiding leading him to say things rather than letting him share things with minimum prompting.

The link is above in the post right above yours.  I was responding to rongo claiming the anachronism of yours discredited her.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Explain to me please how this language amounts to extraction (the action of taking out something, especially using effort or force) as opposed to just letting him tell his story until she notices he got something wrong she is aware of.

After Bishop say "When I confessed to Elder Wells in the mission field, do you know why that happened?"

These are her only responses:

"Uh-uh (negative)."
"This is when you worked missionary [inaudible 02:31:44]."
"Mission President, okay."

"Wow."

"I know that."

She then corrects him "You couldn't have 'cause you were MTC president after Argentina."
 

Your language appears to put the responsibility of him getting mixed up on her as if she was intentionally trying to confuse him as far as dates and times.  I don't see that.  There is content she pushes him to accept, but him making a confession to someone about her...I don't read it that way?  She wants to know if he did or didn't, but that is different.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

If you are saying he is not a reliable witness and is all over the place trying to please her while not committing himself to anything solid, I agree with you.

I am questioning the competency and probative value of the recording.  Bishop may well be lucid and competent to testify, but I have serious reservations about whether the recording reflects that.

Quote

If you are claiming she is intentionally trying to get him to falsely confess, I don't see any solid evidence of that.  

I'm not particularly interested in speculating about what her intent was.  What she actually did, however, was to extract a false confession from an 85-year old man two days after he had undergone heart surgery, having used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one discussion, reminded him that she had threatened to kill him (p. 27), accused him of raping her, and demanding that he apologize.  He then denies raping her (or that he remembers anything about that), and also comes out with what appears to be a false confession (p. 33).

I think this gives rise to concerns about coercion.  Threats.  Leading questions.  Bishop's mental competency (during the interview, anyway).

Quote

She is just as likely to be a poor interrogator in the sense of avoiding leading him to say things rather than letting him share things with minimum prompting.

Yes, she clearly is a poor interrogator.  She didn't avoid "leading" him.  To the contrary, she led him all over the place, including into at least one (and possibly two) false confessions.

Quote

The link is above in the post right above yours.  I was responding to rongo claiming the anachronism of yours discredited her.

I think the false confession weakens the reliability of the recording as competent, probative evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

I think the recording is useless.

I think using the term " extract" is silly in regards to the comments about his confession to Wells.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Explain to me please how this language amounts to extraction (the action of taking out something, especially using effort or force) as opposed to just letting him tell his story until she notices he got something wrong she is aware of.

After Bishop say "When I confessed to Elder Wells in the mission field, do you know why that happened?"

These are her only responses:

"Uh-uh (negative)."
"This is when you worked missionary [inaudible 02:31:44]."
"Mission President, okay."

"Wow."

"I know that."

She then corrects him "You couldn't have 'cause you were MTC president after Argentina."

Your language appears to put the responsibility of him getting mixed up on her as if she was intentionally trying to confuse him as far as dates and times.  

"The responsibility of him getting mixed up" appears to be almost entirely Denson's.  Again, she used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old man into a private, one-on-one discussion.  And the interview took place two days after Bishop had undergone heart surgery.  She started out the "interview" all nice and jovial, then totally switched gears, accused him of raping her, reminded him that she had threatened to kill him (p. 27), and demanding that he apologize.  He then denies raping her (or that he remembers anything about that), and also comes out with what appears to be a false confession (p. 33).

Quote

I don't see that.  There is content she pushes him to accept, but him making a confession to someone about her...I don't read it that way?  She wants to know if he did or didn't, but that is different.

She was leading him all over the place.  Having gotten him into a room alone.  Under false pretenses.  And she reminded him that she had previously threatened to kill him.

The recording is a muddled mess.  I think we agree on that.  But I think we also agree that Bishop appears to have done something very wrong while representing the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the recording is useless.

Not totally useless, but not very useful.

Quote

I think using the term "extract" is silly in regards to the comments about his confession to Wells.

Consider the circumstances.  I've laid them out twice in the two preceding posts.  

Bishop found himself in a room alone with a woman who lured him into that room under false pretenses, then switched gears and accused him of rape, then reminded him that she had previously threatened to kill him, then demanded that he apologize.  It doesn't seem too far-fetched to be concerned about whether Bishop's statements were coerced.  Compelled.  Extracted.

Are you suggesting that Bishop's remarks were made voluntarily?  Is it possible, in your view, that they were not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

then reminded him that she had previously threatened to kill him

But she says that so casually and it doesn't affect him in the least from his tone of voice or comment...she could have followed it up easily if it was an intent to threaten him rather than just trying to see if he knew about the threat (given the police came and talked to her about it, it is a reasonable assumption).  He just is curious if she had biker friends and she dismisses that as ludicrous.  (Another time she refers to it, she instantly follows up by saying she wasn't serious, it appears to me she is simply using it to show how frustrated she was, language gets bad to at times for the same reason, other times I think she is doing it for effect...she didn't talk that way at the press conference for sure.)

That part of the conversation starts around 45 minutes on the audio tape if you want to hear the tone of voices.

Quote

Are you suggesting that Bishop's remarks were made voluntarily?  Is it possible, in your view, that they were not?

Yes, they were made voluntarily.  He continues to go on and on, giving information about his life, complaining about his wife, his hardships, etc. He even starts to tell her why she won't get any money from him and how much his interest rate on his home is. She is an avid listener as much as a contributor to the conversation and I think he eats that up.  When he finally says he needs to leave, has to go to the bathroom, she instantly responses to call whomever he came with to take him.

He could have done that at any time, said he wanted to go.  Lots of pauses he could have said "I have had enough, I feel sick, etc."  Lots of noise of people around.  He never even hinted at it, he never expressed any desire to end the conversation, he expresses several times the idea that he wants to accomplish something by having that conversation with her, to move her forward, to resolve his own issues; he just kept going on and on explaining why he did what he did without adding any significant details (except once with masturbation) to make himself look bad (just bad boy because of my bad thoughts and oh, how I have struggled and suffered because of those) while making sure she knew he was special in other ways (baptisms went up from 70 to 400, women found him attractive and flirted with him without him doing anything, all the special blessings and moments he had with church leaders, including one where apparently Pres. Kimball just read his mind while in the middle of a crowd and a week later he was called, how he was so traumatized by his concern over the sisters with problems and stood up to Elder Asay and demanded help for them).  He spent a lot of time making sure she knew others weren't good to him (my first wife didn't love me, my second wife was crazy from her first marriage, but she adores me now, a girl I danced with in high school was mean to me, the sister missionary labeled with Green wanted a back rub, the Florida woman was into some sort of bad stuff, Elder Asay and Elder Packer wouldn't pay money to get a counselor for troubled sister missionaries).

So yeah, I think it was voluntary.  He is even chuckling at times when she gets a little dramatic in her speech (1:05:53) He was so eager to be interviewed, to be seen as a special man with special words (he was even divorced and his second wife in so much pain just so he could get his life saved by having an expert surgeon operate on him).  He enjoyed being flattered and returned the favor (you are a great writer--practically before she has said anything, you should have your own book just like me).  And when it turned dark, he got monotoned (yes, no, I don't remember, but I am sorry) to begin with, but got into it pretty quickly.  He starts going off on how special he is yet again even while he was admitting he had caused her severe pain:  "Well you think that that kind of thing doesn't affect me also. Because you had been bouncing, I'm telling you some very deep spiritualexperiences that have happened to me".

He gets quiet when she goes off on a long explanation or passionate speech, but he always comes back after a few slow starts with his own story, his own version of forcefulness, more persuasion, more appealing to her compassionate nature.

It is all about him for him, he loves talking about himself even if he is being accused of rape.

add-on:  he also stops and says nothing for long, long pauses after she goes off on him from time to time.  He at times is obviously choosing his words carefully, other times it comes across as he knows silence is better because anything he says will upset her, it is possible that some of them are he is just too confused to respond, but it comes across as more likely in those cases that he has gotten lost from his own train of thought so he tries to find something to bring it back to a positive thing for himself...like him starting to tell the story about his divorced three times, now in Costa Rica son and how he is trying to help his son have faith...good,caring dad, not one that should be destroyed, right?

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[readstoomuch]

He is an egotistical, self-centered glory hound.  Generally a bad guy (my interpretation).  I have had church leaders that I did not like, but I generally didn`t think of them as bad, sinful people.  Personality disorders-certainly.  Ms. Denson is tainted also, in this recorded conversation and in her past.  He was in a trusted position, much like a physician or therapist.  If she was broken, he was there to help, not hurt.  I would hope we can learn how to prevent this from happening in the future.  

What actually happened?  I don`t know.  Is it a mess?  Yes.  Does it apply to abuse happening on a huge scale, especially by talking about sexual sin in youth interviews?  No.  I look forward to changes in youth interviews and format.  Though, as my teenage daughter said last night, “I`m not going to talk about my sins in front of my parents.  That needs to be one on one with the bishop.”

[Calm]

Exiled in another thread something I came across the answer to, but it belongs here more than there:

Quote

 I think she may be fuzzy on the actual penetration part because I think she originally said that Bishop attempted penetration but couldn't and now it seems like she is saying he did penetrate her.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209810736

If you do a search in the transcript on "one more" she is explicit about what happened imo.  She states "one more time being raped" and then a very explicit comment (there seems to be a spacing issue, so you need to only search "one more") describing what happened.

 It is about halfway through, but my laptop doesn't provide page numbers.  7 or 8 pages later she states "couldn't completely penetrate", so I think she is consistent on what happened, just wasn't likely aware it qualified as actual rape and not attempted rape even if he didn't 'finish' (trying to be considerate and not too explicit, sorry if it comes across weird) until BYU police informed her.

I am not enjoying going into the details this way, but I think it needs to be clear why the tape is a wash imo as far as proving his guilt beyond him having sexual thoughts about women and getting involved with at least two women not his wife, (but they instigate it in his storytelling so consensual) and it is not a wash, imo, because she is vague or mixed up on details she should know.  I think she is solid enough there.

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

I think the transcript has some errors in it.  The only significant one so far I have noticed is one of the confession comments. ( there is another one that says inaudible when she is clearly saying "Elder Asay" at 01:11:51, she is calling him a liar because no way did what she said to Elder Asay not get back to him).

The context of the error is he is talking about who he has apologized to, Green.  The transcript says:

Quote

Years and years ago. And she had made the same thing you had done. I confessed. She had her problems, too. 

He actually says at 1:10:19 (prior to this there is a lot of stopping as he is trying to figure out what to say, possibly because he is confused in memories, possibly because he is being careful not to say the wrong thing...or both most likely imo)

Quote

Years and years ago.  And she had made the same thing that you have done.  She confessed.  She had her problems too.

If I am right, this is very different.  He claimed (later I think, again don't have pages) that she came on to him in that she asked for the back rub, so what I think I heard is consistent with that.

Quote

[Green] came in and she wanted a back rub. And I rubbed her back. And that got too much...frisky. that's all that ever happened with all, and with [Green]... I must have, you know that was hard on [Green] too. 

Add-on:  when he says that Green has made the same thing Denson made, I believe he means an accusation to a church leader, as this is the only context he talks about a church authority talking to him, but he doesn't remember the name.  I am thinking he wouldn't have forgotten someone high up, but a local bishop he might space on or intentionally not want to say his name, but the way he says it, it sounds more like forgetting to me.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Another "inaudible" missed:

Quote

so you can't blame him for not [inaudible 01:15:30] 

Is actually 

Quote

so can't blame him for not getting after me because I was not forthright

Quote

In Florida, how old was she? 

is really 

Quote

In Florida, how old were you? 

Bishop:  married man

It says a little after 1:22:00 when she asks him what his wife knew, he says the woman in Florida and then the transcript says:

Quote

 

And [Green] And there's some lady I can't remember. 

 

 

 

But it is

Quote

And [Green] to some degree. I can't remember. 

So the transcript makes it appear he is confessing to at least three women, but he is only admitting to inappropriate exchanges with two (and both came on to him).

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

In responding to whether he was coerced or voluntarily in the conversation, at 1:24:00 she says this below and he responds eagerly, he jumps on it with "that is a good question" with excitement in his voice...he is enjoying the conversation at this point, he wants to talk about it:

Quote

 

Denson:  It is up to me. It's a shame, all of the work you've done, in the church, all the wonderful things you've done for people.

Bishop:  That's a good question. I've always had in my mind: why. I heard this marvelous

[inaudible 01:24:41] blessing. I have all these marvelous things happen to me. I

am still around, I am still, I'm still [inaudible 01:24:53], the Lord is with me, and

he knows my suffering. But I haven't been.. I haven't had the problem right

now, I haven't for several years, [inaudible 01:25:05] if there's any problem, I

can control it. I don't have any desire to have any, anything towards... that. That I can tell you. 

 

the first inaudible is Patriarchal blessing and second one is "still watched over", btw

I am sure someone somewhere has gone through the transcript and made a better copy because I can't imagine relying on this one to make legal claims.  Wonder who did this one.

Right after that the conversation goes:

Quote

Bishop:  I would be excommunicated and the church would... [he stops, pauses]

Denson:  What? The church would be what?
Bishop:  The church would be embarrassed.

 I highly doubt he was going to say "embarrassed".  I think it was much more likely on the lines of "the Church would be in trouble", but he is quick enough to realize that would be problematic, that he doesn't want to go there as that would sound like the Church should be blamed, and stops himself.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Oh my gosh, this transcriber is driving me batty:

Quote

if I were to go to- today, my ugly -- 

It is his "lovely" wife, not "ugly" behavior or whatever.

This is a weird blip, got to wonder if intentional:

Quote

It was very hard. It's still hard. I don't trust the priesthood. I believe in the [inaudible 01:28:08] men, I believe in the savior, I do not believe in the church. I do not believe -- 

is

Quote

It was very hard. It's still hard. I don't trust the priesthood. I believe in the Atonement, I believe in the savior, I believe in the Book of Mormon, I do not believe in the church....

Another weird blip:

Quote

Because, see, I'm trying in my way, to do these things... to ... help. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm working with my grandchildren and I'm telling these stories, faithful Mormon stories, because I'm trying to say I'm not that guy anymore. I'm not. I know that. But. You don't know that. 

is 

Quote

Because, see, I'm trying in my way, to do these things... to ...to pay. I don't know if this is...I'm not saying it's right, but I'm working with my grandchildren and I'm telling these stories, faith promoting stories, because I'm trying to say I'm not that guy anymore. I'm not. I know that. But....you don't know that. 

Quote

I now recognize addiction. Ido. Iremember the first time that this ... Iwas in Argentina. [inaudible 01:35:49] and there was this girl next door, and she in the swing, swinging back and forth, and Iwas in the tree, at that age, and that just grew from there. Just grew. 

Argentina is "seven or eight years old, six years old even"

And "Iwas in the tree" is "I was intrigued".

So Bishop says "Yeah because I thought I was normal" which makes me wonder how that self perception fits with the times he and his son says he felt shameful all those years for having lustful thoughts, if he thought he was normal, why was he ashamed?  And then his son says he was just 'male' so Greg Bishop is repeating the 'he is just normal' line, contradicting this big realization*** his father claims, his "gift from God", his figuring out his flirtatious manner can lead to all those inappropriate things he never really mentions except for one back rub and one woman showing him her revealing sun suit and the six year old getting too intrigued by the girl next door.

***"realization that I had used, willingly and unwillingly, my charm for the wrong reasons"

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

I don't know how else to say it. I'm not saying this...casually. Ipaid. I'm so sorry. Iamsososorry. I'mnotjustsayingthatoutoffear.Iknowwhat'sgonna happen, you know what's gonna happen. But I am so sorry. Just terrible . Me. It wasn't you. My only -- just the fact the addiction that [inaudible 01:37:25] had and Ihave, Idon't think I have... Ithink I'm over it. Maybe not. Imay be fine. All of my stuff is gone. I can't ... I haven't... condition took away [inaudible 01:37:41) for the reasons. 

is 1:36: and some seconds...people should listen to it because it is pretty typical of how he is going about this as in 'I feel so bad, I was so wrong, I am so sorry, mea culpa, mea culpa...BUT here is why you shouldn't get me in trouble..."

Quote

I don't know how else to say it, but I'm not saying this...casually. I paid [this may be "I'm pained" or "I'm in pain", but that doesn't make as much sense]. I'm sorry. I am so so sorry. I'm not just saying that out of fear.  I don't know what's gonna happen, you don't know what's gonna happen. But I am so sorry. Just terrible....Me. It wasn't you. It was.....My only defense, it is not a defense, it is just a recognition that I had and I have, I don't think I have... I think I'm over it. But maybe not. I may be fine. All of my stuff is gone. I can't, I had an operation that took away incontinence, is that the right word [Denson says some stuff] ... Well whatever it is, I've been able to accept my lot in life. And that was ... that's taken away a lot of stuff, too. Because there's no sense in fussing around. It's just embarrassing.

But let's go back to you. I just want you to know, for what it's maybe worth or maybe not worth to you,  but I am very very sorry, I am so sorry. I don't know if I can ever be forgiven on the other side. 

Denson:  I don't care.
Bishop:  I don't.
Denson:  I don't either.
Bishop:  I worry about it all the time.
Denson:  You should worry about it.
Bishop:  I do. I do. But what else can I do? I've done everything I possibly can --

Denson:  ----- you have not.

Bishop:  I knew you'd say that, but Ican't think of anything else I need to do  or could do...

You know, if Bishop was that repentant, he could have come right out at the beginning and said all this without having to wait until she accused him.  Instead this only comes out after he has to face she is going to be telling others and his family is going to find out and he will likely get excommunicated and it is all this sorrow, this repentance, this "I am cured so you don't have to tell anyone now!!!" routine, all this concern for the pain of others coming back to him pretty much begging "don't tell on me".  He is trying so hard to convince she doesn't need to tell on him, he is contradicting himself on what is going on with him.  He uses "I have been able to accept my lot in life" as if losing sexual interest is this huge punishment that he is so spiritually advanced to accept.

That he thinks losing his desire because he had an operation is enough...that he thinks is all he needs to do, he doesn't need to be open with his ex-wife, his church leaders, his kids.

Why on the one hand is he so accepting of her coming forward with the accusation...of course she is going to do it he pretty much says (before he tries to cajole her into not doing it by holding himself up as blessed with a cure)?  It is so inconsistent with where he goes later when he says he can't think of what else needs to be done since he is no longer sexually interested in anyone, as if all that is at issue was his problematic thoughts.  Why would he think she would be the one to be telling anyone else he has lustful thoughts?  The only thing his family would be devastated by is an accusation of him attacking her or at the very least having inappropriate relations with her.  Why in the world would his greatgrandkids care that Grandpa once upon a time had some dirty thoughts when a woman was too forward with him?  That he just flirted a bit too much with the women he willingly and unwillingly charmed?  Seriously, it just doesn't compute that he did nothing and has no memory of doing nothing when he is scared deeply earlier that he is going to be exposed by her and he goes to great detail to show her that everyone else is going to be devastated.

Quote

 

Bishop:  I don't remember that, and now I'm worrying about what else don't I remember.

Well, I think that's a pretty good thing to worry about because ...

Bishop:  Well, it's a big thing for me. I worry about it all the time... 

 

Why is he worrying about it all the time if he doesn't remember?

And after this he goes into a long pretty random story about his son and how he is trying to help him and that goes into Bishop being interviewed telepathically by Pres. Kimball and getting called to the MTC a few week later, or maybe getting appointed as President of Weber state (it says "It took me out of the situation I was presently to stand and I had reorganized the knowledge because it needed to be reorganized" but "it took me out of the situation.  I was President of Weber State and I had reorganized the college")...what in the world does this have to do with what is going on between him and Denson?  He is trying to get out of the situation by bearing his testimony and pointing out how special he was.  After that, she challenges him (why would a rapist be having spiritual experiences) and he just goes along with the challenge except to add that he doesn't remember raping her...but if so, then why wouldn't he merit spiritual experiences unless he really truly believes he is capable of rape.  And he is coherent enough that it only makes sense he is willing to go there if he actually knows he has done comparable things, not just responded to women flirting with him, but been the one who took it too far on his own.

Quote

No, I'm saying I've had these experiences and then something happens, and then I claw my way out, up and up, and up. 

Just lustful thoughts and he uses this term?  I don't buy it given the way he has talked about sex throughout the interview.  He is not so timid around sex that a mere lustful thought would drive him desperation as implied by "claw my way out".  One frisky back rub and one woman being too revealing in a skimpy sunsuit in all his years?  This sounds like it is much more common than just once every 20 years.

 

Quote

I found a lot of women, but a lot of bad thoughts. 

I can't really tell what he is saying, but the above doesn't make sense and it doesn't sound like that in tone, sounds more like he is saying "not a lot of women, but a lot of bad thoughts"...and then confesses to the one thing that even approaches a problem, masturbation going on for a long time which together suggests he was doing a lot of fantasizing, but nothing with anyone else.  Again confessing some, but not much.  Will his great grandkids really be devastated to hear about that?

Quote

 

I think there are a lot of women, and I think there are a lot of bad things, and if you have forgotten, at least, that small part ...

I did, which makes me wonder what else I might have forgotten? So it doesn't surprise you that you may have done that?
Oh, no. 

 

His intonation on the "oh no" is interesting, it doesn't should led, but almost casual as if he is saying 'why are you bothering me to ask that, of course it doesn't surprise me'. (1:47:30ish for those interested in listening to it)

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Hmm...she says at 1:51:00 ish:

Quote

And then you take another------- calling to go to South America to work for the welfare? Which they would not called you had they known you were a predator. 

So this was in 94-96, after she claims she spoke with Elder Asay.  So either she is figuring Elder Asay didn't tell anyone or she didn't actually speak to Elder Asay.

At the end of it, maybe starting at 1:45:00 or 1:50:00, both of their voices change.  She has been angry and he has been trying to pull her out of it, to get her to back off on exposing him.  Now it sounds to me like both of them are very much in the moment, not thinking about what they are saying, but being open, being authentic (that word has been used so much, I don't like using it, but it works best here), she isn't as lecturing, as deliberate with her words though she ends up slipping back in off and on and it starts feeling like a planned story again.  If there is any pretense here, it would surprise me.  He is almost making me wonder now if his lifelong problem he won't come out and just say is porn.  I don't get why then he thinks he could rape her if he didn't actually get involved with other women beyond what he said, but maybe his fantasies were violent.

I am not saying that I believe he is innocent of what she is accusing him of, if he thinks he might have done it and it appears that he really does, imo now and he is not just saying that to try to pacify her anger, I don't see why I should doubt him...but I am more open now I have heard the last part of the transcript rather than just reading it, that he was into porn.  However, that doesn't explain the level of anger she has towards him and I don't see it as just a con she has talked herself into.  Could she have been projecting false memories on to him that were really someone else?  The basement detail could have come from Green, it is obvious from the transcript that Denson has talked with Green as she knows details about what happened to her.  How else would she have know about them?  As far as we know Green never went to the police and it is unlikely church leaders would have shared details with Denson.  I suppose this could be a possibility, but seems unlikely.  Maybe he took her downstairs and showed her porn and that is as far as it went...but if it went that far, why not further?

The moment of authenticness passes in my opinion and he is back in his routine of 'i'm sorry, I feel your pain, I want you to heal, I want to heal, oh look, I am almost there so you don't have to publicly accuse me and we can all live happily ever after'.  This ticks her off, of course.

He states in response to a challenge that he isn't healing because he isn't being honest:

Quote

She said for the first time, through a message to me today, she loves me and she trusts me. She never said trust before. So yeah, well that's where I'm ... 

So what are the changes in 12 plus years of their relationship (including a divorce and reengagement), that this day was the very first day she ever told him she trusted him....I don't buy that, that is storytelling.  And the voice makes it sound real.  So if he can tell that kind of story believable, he might be telling lies at other times it doesn't sound like it.

There are still 41 minutes left and it is almost 3 AM, got to stop and don't know if I will start up again.  I do think it is a good idea to listen to the audio while you are reading the transcript.  You will catch some mistakes, but also it helps with following the comments.  The intonations, the length of the pauses definitely affect the meanings, both in positive ways for Bishop and negative ways.  There is for most of it for me a patronizing edge to Denson's voice; perhaps she does a lot of explaining to addicts why they do the things they do because that is what it sounds like...she is not there questioning, she acts like she knows him better than he knows himself.  Since she hasn't seen him for 33 years and never as an equal before, it doesn't ring solid for me, it may be weakening my sympathy for her and creating a sense of distrust, I am trying to figure out what she gets from saying such and such rather than just hearing it as a natural response.

She is not coercing him imo, not in the usual way I would use it, but she is a forceful personality and I flashback at times to my grandma going "you know I'm right, you know I'm right" and he responses in pretty much that way too most of the time 'yes, you are right; yes, you are right'.  Which of course makes me distrust both of them and therefore the whole engagement.  It has a few real moments, but most of it so far is just them playing their set pieces (which is not to say those pieces are lies, just that they come across as habits that might be covering the truth or might just be habitual because they are the truth).

Anyway, the transcript/recording doesn't reveal anything criminal in my opinion (which in addition to neither of them being consistently reliable is what I mean by useless).  I still have more to go in the recording, but unless some intonation dramatically changes my perception of something said, I don't think that part of my opinion is going to change.

I don't suppose anyone else wants to do a play by play of the recording/transcript.  I would find a comparison of reactions fascinating (my brain goes to this kind of stuff as it is easier to think of it as if it is all a play instead of real people dealing with abuse and maybe rape and definitely huge turmoil in their lives, but what in the world caused it, I don't know).

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps they will just give him another blessing.

How would blessing those who curse you and praying for those who abuse you be a bad thing? Don’t we all need blessings and prayers, even we sinners?

[rongo]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

That only makes him look bad though, not her.  She can’t help that he’s confessing to other abuses of other girls in the process of this investigation (her’s and the official one).

It does make him look bad, but that undermines his testimony. When he says "Yes" (which he does repeatedly during the 4 hours) to things that can't possibly be true, and they're wanting to zero in on only certain ones of the "Yeses," then that takes a lot of the wind out of the sails as far as using only those "Yeses" as a "confession." 

It's clear that at times, he is agreeing with her because of a) her manipulative interviewing style and the setting, and b) automatically, as a conversation technique. 

As smac pointed out, it is problematic to only want to use some of those assentions, but not others that are problematic. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

It does make him look bad, but that undermines his testimony. When he says "Yes" (which he does repeatedly during the 4 hours) to things that can't possibly be true,...

Such as?  Do you have a quote for something he agreed to that "can't possibly be true"?  (Sincere question as I have not read the complete transcript).

 

Also, thanks Calm for all the work you've done posting what you've just posted here in an attempt to make sure the transcript is accurate.  Seems like the one we have has several errors in it (if I'm understanding correctly)?

I'll take some time to completely read all you've posted, but thanks again!

[rongo]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

There are still 41 minutes left and it is almost 3 AM, got to stop and don't know if I will start up again.  I do think it is a good idea to listen to the audio while you are reading the transcript.  You will catch some mistakes, but also it helps with following the comments.  The intonations, the length of the pauses definitely affect the meanings, both in positive ways for Bishop and negative ways.  There is for most of it for me a patronizing edge to Denson's voice; perhaps she does a lot of explaining to addicts why they do the things they do because that is what it sounds like...she is not there questioning, she acts like she knows him better than he knows himself.  Since she hasn't seen him for 33 years and never as an equal before, it doesn't ring solid for me, it may be weakening my sympathy for her and creating a sense of distrust, I am trying to figure out what she gets from saying such and such rather than just hearing it as a natural response.

She is not coercing him imo, not in the usual way I would use it, but she is a forceful personality and I flashback at times to my grandma going "you know I'm right, you know I'm right" and he responses in pretty much that way too most of the time 'yes, you are right; yes, you are right'.  Which of course makes me distrust both of them and therefore the whole engagement.  It has a few real moments, but most of it so far is just them playing their set pieces (which is not to say those pieces are lies, just that they come across as habits that might be covering the truth or might just be habitual because they are the truth).

Anyway, the transcript/recording doesn't reveal anything criminal in my opinion (which in addition to neither of them being consistently reliable is what I mean by useless).  I still have more to go in the recording, but unless some intonation dramatically changes my perception of something said, I don't think that part of my opinion is going to change.

Wow, Calm, you deserve a medal for going through the audio like you did. And up until the wee hours of the morning, too.

Did anyone else have a slight feeling of similarity between this and Martha Beck interrogating/accusing Hugh Nibley in a hotel room near the end of his life? I'm not saying that Bishop is as innocent as Nibley, or the Denson was holding him there by force like Beck, but the tone and the intent and all that seem slightly similar. 

Completely agree with the audio and transcript being a huge mess and not useful for proving the explosive charges. Denson's "okays" and going along with Bishop's muddled ramblings (which need to be cobbled clumsily together to be Exhibit A for the serious charge of rape) are troubling. 

I think I would go to trial on this, with a Utah jury, but I don't think the Church will. Has the Church ever gone to trial on anything like this and not settled? Personally, I think it's taking so long to do a settlement because Denson scuttled them by her lack of wisdom and savvy (leaking, lying about leaking, etc. during negotiations), and you can't just give Vernon a slam-dunk with the lay of the land being like this. Make him sweat because of his loose cannon client. 

I think that the Church's PR hit has already hit high-water, and wouldn't be worse if they won at trial. That could also help with the PR, actually.

Know what else is a muddled mess? Formally disciplining Bishop, like many people want. The outrage will flow if he isn't, but I wouldn't want to be the stake president who needs to convene one with this. You can ask him what really happened, and you'll get what he says in the interview and in the DC, but then you have the mess of the audio/transcript and all of that. What a mess! And the DC's job is to determine what he is really guilty of, and what should be done about it. And it's not a good thing to let your primary consideration be pacifying the "pound of flesh" #MeToo movement for Mormonism people instead of what has truly happened. 

Glad it's not my circus, not my monkeys!  

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Such as?  Do you have a quote for something he agreed to that "can't possibly be true"?  (Sincere question as I have not read the complete transcript).

I haven't, either. I'm relying on smac's analysis, and now, Calm's analysis. 

I have "keine Lust" for reading through the transcript of the four-hour mess. I would if I were Greg Bishop, or if it otherwise directly affected me. But I'm content with going on what has been discussed and pointed out here.