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

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 

Have you been on a jury before? It's quite an experience. 

He admits he molestered her.

He answered "Yes" to Denson's leading questions, in a pattern of acquiescing during a very long interview (under false pretenses). I think good attorneys could get juries to see, with examples from the interview, that there is more than a reasonable doubt that that "Yes" might not be meaningful. Especially in the context of the whole interview.

It’s also damaging when he starts trying to confirm who Denson is with his questions (ie. “Oh, were you the one that had a boob job?” “Oh, were you the one with a biker friend?”) like he was trying to remember which victim she was.

Yes, it is "like" he might be trying to remember which victim she was. Or which missionary at the MTC. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and attorney and judge instructions to the jury are crucial here.

He also admits that there was a room in the basement of the MTC as she described it.

What does the existence of rooms in the basement signify? I spent a night in the MTC basement (concrete floor, exposed pipes). It's hazy, and I don't remember if there were rooms off to the side, but it wouldn't be surprising at all if there were. "As she described it?" Or, was this another terse "Yes?" The anonymous MTC employee simply acknowledged that there was a room. But, that doesn't prove that what Denson said happened happened.

He admits he’d be the “Harry Weinstein of Mormonism” if people knew.

What does that mean? You are assuming that it means "I did what McKenna Denson said I did." I know men who consider themselves to be as bad as Harry Weinstein, and they haven't done anything other than have difficulty controlling their thoughts. Some are wracked with guilt for years, and no amount of confessions to leaders lessens the guilt. Bishop strikes me in the interview as exactly that. 

He admits to confessing inappropriate behavior to his priesthood leaders and claims he’s a sex addict.

See what I just typed. 

I can’t imagine that a member of a jury listening to all this would find it “useless” information.

What is the jurisdiction/venue? I can easily see a jury in other venues also struggling to reach a guilty verdict using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Probably, the Church will settle, but the Church has settled cases before that it could have won. There are pyhrric victories where the PR hit from winning doesn't outweigh settling, but the PR might be bad enough as it is. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Have you been on a jury before? It's quite an experience. 

Yes, I’ve actually served on a jury where a grandfather was accused of sexually abusing his granddaughter.  And, you’re right about it being quite an experience.  It was heartbreaking for all involved and we as jurors were very thorough and eventually after weighing everything were able to come to a unanimous verdict.

I see your other points too (in your post).  But if I listened to that tape as a juror, it would be very damaging to Bishop.  I have listened to it and agree that she leads him in parts of it, but he volunteers a lot that is very damaging too, imo.

I think that combined with another witness coming forward, and a person confirming the room in the MTC plus other information that would be presented in the trial, I think it looks very bad for Bishop.

I agree that the church will settle.  They can’t possibly want all of this to play out in front of their members and everyone else publicly.

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

Or which missionary at the MTC.

Yeah, because MTC presidents always identify or remember female missionaries by whether or not they're the ones who'd "had a boob job" (Bishop's own words....no leading there by Mckenna Denson).

Come on rongo....I think you're better than to try and use that argument.  Any juror would know how that is sexual and also highly inappropriate to use that description to identify a young girl coming to the MTC in preparation for serving her mission.

I agree, that alone it's of course not enough to convict anyone.  But combined with all of the other statements and evidence, it contributes to supporting the charges and to Bishop's frame of mind regarding sister missionaries.

Edited April 11, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah, because MTC presidents always identify or remember female missionaries by whether or not they're the ones who'd "had a boob job" (Bishop's own words....no leading there by Mckenna Denson).

Come on rongo....I think you're better than to try and use that argument.  Any juror would know how that is sexual and also highly inappropriate to use that description to identify a young girl coming to the MTC in preparation for serving her mission.

I agree, that alone it's of course not enough to convict anyone.  But combined with all of the other statements and evidence, it contributes to supporting the charges and to Bishop's frame of mind regarding sister missionaries.

Plus, he wasn’t asking about descriptions of girls that were at the MTC while he was president.  He was trying to narrow down which girl she was out of those he’d taken down to his private room in the basement.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yeah, because MTC presidents always identify or remember female missionaries by whether or not they're the ones who'd "had a boob job" (Bishop's own words....no leading there by Mckenna Denson).

Oh, his wording is bad, but it alone doesn't rise to the level of what the lawsuit and/or criminal charges want to get out of it. The charge and the claim is that he raped her, not that he talked dirty or used crude language. That is the serious thing next to which all else pales. And that would be the focus for the jury. Did the rape happen beyond a reasonable doubt?

Come on rongo....I think you're better than to try and use that argument.  Any juror would know how that is sexual and also highly inappropriate to use that description to identify a young girl coming to the MTC in preparation for serving her mission.

But it is wording coming from an 85 year-old man many decades after the fact. I know many elderly men who kind of "lose it" without being senile or having Alzheimers who start to make inappropriate comments or use language they never used previously. One of them is the father of a prominent Church member who snapped in his 80s (he was a patriarch at the time) and starting compulsively viewing internet porn and running around the neighborhood in his garments. Not that Bishop was that far gone, but I think a case could be made that Bishop's language here is of that kind. i.e., he was asking her in 2017 if she was this or that missionary, where he would ask her (in his mid 80s) if she was the one who had had plastic surgery, or the one with a biker friend, etc. He apparently was holding unorthodox loose "counseling" sessions with troubled sister missionaries, and could have known of the surgery (to bring it up at all) from that. That is not good MTC president behavior, to be sure, but it also does not constitute rape. That is the core of the case to sue the Church for lots of money.

I agree, that alone it's of course not enough to convict anyone.  But combined with all of the other statements and evidence, it contributes to supporting the charges and to Bishop's frame of mind regarding sister missionaries.

Two things.

1) His frame of mind at 85 might not be representative of his life (see above), and isn't a good yardstick for rendering judgment on whether a rape happened. 

2) As you point out, the plaintiff's job is to build enough of a circumstantial case to sway the jury, because there are no smoking guns in the transcript. Jurors would be reminded often by the judge and the defense about the standard, and that it is their job to ensure that they don't render a guilty verdict unless they feel that the evidence clearly goes beyond a reasonable doubt. People will differ on this, and it often becomes a mirror of where they are at. It could go either way with a jury (Bishop would have an advantage in Utah, perhaps). If I were on the jury, knowing what we know now, and knowing what we know now, I would have a hard time voting that I think the rape happened. That's not to say that Bishop doesn't have embarrassing things that have arisen from this. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Plus, he wasn’t asking about descriptions of girls that were at the MTC while he was president.  He was trying to narrow down which girl she was out of those he’d taken down to his private room in the basement.

Are you sure about that? I'd have to look at the transcript again. I seem to remember that it looked like he was trying to place her among missionaries. 

If he was trying to narrow down which girl she was out of those he'd taken down to his private room in the basement (and this can be demonstrated in the transcript), then my needle moves towards conviction/damages awarded.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Are you sure about that? I'd have to look at the transcript again. I seem to remember that it looked like he was trying to place her among missionaries. 

If he was trying to narrow down which girl she was out of those he'd taken down to his private room in the basement (and this can be demonstrated in the transcript), then my needle moves towards conviction/damages awarded.

I can see why men get away with sexual abuse all the time.  Even when there is damaging evidence.  

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can see why men get away with sexual abuse all the time.  Even when there is damaging evidence.  

I think that many men get away with rape because it’s often difficult to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Damaging evidence doesn’t equal guilty. 

[Danzo]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can see why men get away with sexual abuse all the time.  Even when there is damaging evidence.  

A lot of people get away with a lot of things.

Our system is designed to let people get away with things to reduce innocent people getting punished.

There are other places with other systems that would rather let innocent people go to jail than let someone get away with something.

Perhaps we should change the system to make sure nobody gets away with anything? 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

That's the point, though. "I think he is more likely the type to downplay what he did" because he blamed former wives. It's supposition and assumption. That doesn't fit the standard of reasonable doubt (or whatever the standard would be) when you're talking about very serious charges with very serious consequences. No matter how big a jerk he may have been.

Completely agree. I also find it to be useless from the standpoint of proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt. A good attorney would pick it apart.

It is not just the wives he is shifting responsibility to, it is everyone else.  He initiates nothing, everything just happens to him. And he uses his alleged confessions, including iirc one through telepathy, with leaders to excuse his behaviour...he implies it must be all okay since he kept getting callings, kept having spiritual experiences...if he did anything wrong, he implies it is their fault for making him feel he was doing okay or not holding him to a higher standard before giving him the callings.

However, claiming he is owning responsibility where he is really shifting responsibility without being detailed about what he should be responsible for.. while that may look to me as an experienced denier of abuse, it provides no actual information about his past behaviour.  His likely flirtation with Denson on the tape (what a great writer you are before they even started, there should be a book about you, etc. and possibly touching her multiple times during the conversation...though she is the one who mentions that and since there is no video, who knows) isn't criminal or abusive, she responded in kind in terms of flattering him (which makes sense to me if she is trying to get him to open up, feel safe).

There is nothing on the tape that he detailed that can be demonstrated imo to be criminal or even abusive.  And I highly doubt that him responding "yes" and "yes, but I don't remember" and other no content affirmatives...I just don't see that as being accepted as evidence of abuse, even if there wasn't the age, surgery, and medication claims they can throw in.

----

"2nd witness claims"

We have no details from the second witness herself as far as I know.  Everything we think we know about the second witness is from Denson and Bishop.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The charge and the claim is that he raped her, not that he talked dirty or used crude language. That is the serious thing next to which all else pales. And that would be the focus for the jury. Did the rape happen beyond a reasonable doubt?

In a criminal trial, the standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the criminal statute of limitations has run out, and the church and bishop are being tried in a civil suit. In a civil proceeding, the standard is usually "preponderance of the evidence," which basically means that the evidence demonstrates that the wrongdoing most likely occurred. 

Has there been enough evidence to prove it more likely than not that he raped her? I don't know. I tend to think not, but maybe we haven't seen all of the evidence yet. 

[Calm]

On April 11, 2018 at 2:47 PM, JulieM said:

Plus, he wasn’t asking about descriptions of girls that were at the MTC while he was president.  He was trying to narrow down which girl she was out of those he’d taken down to his private room in the basement.

I think interpretation can be varied.  To me it sounds like he is taking what she is telling him and jumping to conclusions...she says she threatened to kill him, he immediately asks if she has biker friends.  It is a random comment if you think he is trying to identify if she is the sister missionary with biker friends as why would being told she threatened to kill him trigger that?, it makes more sense to me that with his mild dementia he is trying to understand how a woman like her would go about trying to kill him...and his mind goes to her having a biker friend take him out and he is trying to confirm if his guess is right.

The boob job...she started them talking about breasts, not him.  She talks about how she was so small breasted as a missionary, he can see she is not small breasted and starts thinking about that and comes up with she had a boob job....creepy, but no evidence in my opinion that he knew a sister missionary in the MTC with a boob job (they were not as common back then, very uncommon for young women until after a mom who had babies, also more expensive).  However, it makes me think he likely did see a woman unclothed who was large breasted.

It is ambiguous enough, I get why some are reading it as  you are, but he starts to go into his reasoning on why he thinks she had a boob job and she cuts him off, so I don't think it can be pinned down as one or the other.  As for the "biker friends" why does he bring it up after she says she was planning on killing him?  Why would he be focused at the time on trying to figure out who she is and ignoring the threat?  Makes more sense to me he was trying to figure out how she would go about trying to kill him.

Quote

Okay. Do you know who I am?
No. I don't. Are you, yeah I do.
I threatened to kill you in 2010.

Do you have some biker friends?
No, biker friends? God, no.

 

Quote

D:  So here I am because Iwant an apology and Iappreciate your honesty, except I find it very odd that you remember details about everything except the basement from what you did to me there.

B:  What I remember about the basement was different.
D:  Oh?

B:  You had had an operation, a breast enhancement.

D:  No. (laughs) N o. I had no boobs at 21 years old.

B:  Well you'd talked about it [this could mean talked about it earlier in the tape or at the MTC, but if the latter he never saw her exposed as he would know it was a padded bra and she was small breasted] because you had no boobs at 21 I'd thought you had a new ... 

D:  Why would I have, why would we talk about having a boob job at 21 and you thinking I'd had a boob job when I had no breasts whatsoever?

B:  I, yeah. 

D:  I wore a padded bra, so I think your, I think your understanding was skewed. Anyway, that's what I remember about ...

B:  That's what I remember about ... honestly.

D:  Okay. 

I think what may have happened is he did get Denson mixed up with the woman he asked to expose her breasts****...he remembers those as larger, which means he reasons that Denson would have had to had an enlargement prior to the mission if she was small breasted originally...but she reminds him that she was small on her mission, not just before.

It is too bad she didn't follow him up on that...as in "why did you think I had large breasts?"  "Because I remember them that way."  "when did you see them?", "when we were in the basement", "it must have been someone else because I was small", "oh, you are right, it was [Green] I saw" etc.  Unfortunately she gave him an excuse he can use in court...something along the lines of 'I just meant she appeared to have large breasts, but it was her padded bra. I never actually saw hers or anyone else's.'

****add-on:  this appears to have happened in the basement, because he says "what I remember about the basement is different" and then he starts talking about her having a breast enhancement.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

In a criminal trial, the standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the criminal statute of limitations has run out, and the church and bishop are being tried in a civil suit. In a civil proceeding, the standard is usually "preponderance of the evidence," which basically means that the evidence demonstrates that the wrongdoing most likely occurred. 

Has there been enough evidence to prove it more likely than not that he raped her? I don't know. I tend to think not, but maybe we haven't seen all of the evidence yet. 

I think it will depend a lot on what the second victim says.  If she is the one who was asked to expose herself, but that is all...it seems unlikely they can prove rape.  If she says he became violent with her as well, I would be very surprised if he didn't get found guilty or rather liable.  However, even if Denson talked to Elder Asay and told him she was raped, all that proves is she was claiming from the beginning she was raped and I believe we have that confirmed already by Brother Leavitt, exYSA bishop.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

A lot of people get away with a lot of things.

Our system is designed to let people get away with things to reduce innocent people getting punished.

There are other places with other systems that would rather let innocent people go to jail than let someone get away with something.

Perhaps we should change the system to make sure nobody gets away with anything? 

Our system should at least start with a level playing field. And just because someone holds a high church position should not mean that he should not have been investigated seriously by the police at the time the crime was reported  

If she was taken seriously then the least the police should have done is to interview other sister missionaries and see if this room that the victim described existed. Knowing that because of your position you are probably not going to be carefully investigated for sexual abuse is not helping these victims from serial attacks or justice. 

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Our system should at least start with a level playing field. And just because someone holds a high church position should not mean that he should not have been investigated seriously by the police at the time the crime was reported  

If she was taken seriously then the least the police should have done is to interview other sister missionaries and see if this room that the victim described existed. Knowing that because of your position you are probably not going to be carefully investigated for sexual abuse is not helping these victims from serial attacks or justice. 

Sorry, our system doesn't have a level playing field. 

There is a presumption of innocence.

This presumption must be overcome by overwhelming evidence. There cannot be any reasonable doubt.

Even in a civil case the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

The cards are always stacked against an accuser.

That's the way it should be.

I hope you never have to be in a situation where you appreciate this.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Our system should at least start with a level playing field. And just because someone holds a high church position should not mean that he should not have been investigated seriously by the police at the time the crime was reported  

If she was taken seriously then the least the police should have done is to interview other sister missionaries and see if this room that the victim described existed. Knowing that because of your position you are probably not going to be carefully investigated for sexual abuse is not helping these victims from serial attacks or justice. 

But she didn't report it to the police nor did the bishop she reported it to,  so I don't think you can draw a judgment either way on police behaviour based on this account because they never got a chance to be involved.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

I thought at one point there was a police report filed. The one that BYU first redacted and then released

[Marginal Gains]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Confessing to what, though?  That remains fairly opaque and vague.  

But what does "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse" mean?  

Moreover, how much did the LDS Church know, such that the "known offender" appellation is appropriate?

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m guessing you wouldn’t argue that the Church has known him to be an offender for certain since they read his confession back in December?

In which case, why is he still a member?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it will depend a lot on what the second victim says.  If she is the one who was asked to expose herself, but that is all...it seems unlikely they can prove rape.  If she says he became violent with her as well, I would be very surprised if he didn't get found guilty or rather liable.  However, even if Denson talked to Elder Asay and told him she was raped, all that proves is she was claiming from the beginning she was raped and I believe we have that confirmed already by Brother Leavitt, exYSA bishop.

If he is guilty of what she says, it does look bleak if the second victim or any others don't come through. 

[smac97]

 

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

Confessing to what, though?  That remains fairly opaque and vague.  

But what does "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse" mean?  

Moreover, how much did the LDS Church know, such that the "known offender" appellation is appropriate?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t argue that the Church has known him to be an offender for certain since they read his confession back in December?

The point under discussion is what was known about him in the 70s and 80s.

As for now, I can't speak as to his current standing in the Church.  We don't know if he has been disciplined.  Some sort of discipline would seem to be in order given his admissions.

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

In which case, why is he still a member?

I can't speak to the timing of such things.  

Meanwhile, we still don't know the parameters of Bishop's supposed "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

Quote

To be sure, Bishop makes some admissions to some misconduct,

.....

He did admit to some misconduct, but I don't think he has "clearly" admitted much.

So, it’s ok if he molested someone as long as it wasn’t MUCH molesting?  

I've said nothing even close to that.  Sexual abuse of any sort is deplorable.

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

Or, it’s Ok if he sexually harassed or abused women as long as it wasn’t that much. 

Certainly not.

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

Next you’ll be defending him by saying that it’s ok because he only raped her a little and didn’t complete the act.

I am examining the evidence.  I am trying to be dispassionate in that examination.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quote

But what does "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse" mean?  

Really smac?  You need to ask that regarding this case?

Well, I'd like to better understand it.

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

Read over the timeline to see when the accusations began and the confessions took place.

I've read it.  Several times.

Let's review the context here: My comment arose in response to your claim that Bishop was a "known {sexual abuse} offender" in the 70s and 80s.  "Known" as in "known by the LDS Church."

So I asked:

He was a "known offender" in the 1970s and 1980s?

and

Please also clarify what the Church knew about these allegations.

I'm still waiting for what "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse" means in this context, and also what the Church purportedly knew about this "pattern."

I've read the timeline.  It doesn't really elucidate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'd like to better understand it.

I've read it.  Several times.

Let's review the context here: My comment arose in response to your claim that Bishop was a "known {sexual abuse} offender" in the 70s and 80s.  "Known" as in "known by the LDS Church."

So I asked:

He was a "known offender" in the 1970s and 1980s?

and

Please also clarify what the Church knew about these allegations.

I'm still waiting for what "pattern of behavior of sexual abuse" means in this context, and also what the Church purportedly knew about this "pattern."

I've read the timeline.  It doesn't really elucidate.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think in the context of what he is saying in the interview, the claim of "in the 1970s and 1980s" is legit.  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.  And that he did it, after having confessed for years before--he did it as a mission president because he wanted to make sure his confession was covered.  

I get you want to doubt his admissions and comments in the interview, because to you he was being lead or was not very clear, but that does not mean there is no reason to think the confessions did not happen during those decades.  It seems there is reason to believe they did.

 

 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

Quote

But imo the transcript has a huge amount of downplaying so it is useless to demonstrate he assaulted anyone.

I disagree that it’s “useless”.  

From an evidentiary perspective, I question its usefulness.  There are real questions about it.  Was it coerced?  Was Bishop under the influence of medication?  Is it relevant, given that the allegation is that Bishop committed rape, and he denies that (although vaguely admits to other misconduct).

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think it’s very damaging and corroborates what the 2nd witness claims (unless I’m confused on this).  He admits he molestered her.

Yes, the recording is certainly damaging.  But it is relevant?  More probative than prejudicial?  Admissible?  

There are some real problems with it, from a legal standpoint.

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

It’s also damaging when he starts trying to confirm who Denson is with his questions (ie. “Oh, were you the one that had a boob job?” “Oh, were you the one with a biker friend?”) like he was trying to remember which victim she was.

And yet that same confusion on his part might cut against the usefulness of the recording.  It suggests that his memory is not reliable.

The legal claims are being asserted by Denson, not the as-yet-to-be-publicly-identified second person. 

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

He also admits that there was a room in the basement of the MTC as she described it.

That's not really a point in dispute, though.  The recording isn't needed to establish that.

The recording does establish that Denson knew about the basement room in December 2017, but that's about it.

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

He admits he’d be the “Harry Weinstein of Mormonism” if people knew.

Meh.  Those are Denson's words, not his (and it's Harvey Weinstein).

Denson used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one discussion, starts the "interview" nicely, but then switches gears and accuses him of rape, and also reminds him that she had threatened to kill him.  He's an 85-year old man recoverying from heart surgery.  If you found yourself in such circumstances, perhaps you would not rush to disagree with the accusations being leveled against you.

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

He admits to confessing inappropriate behavior to his priesthood leaders

Indeed.  What that "inappropriate behavior" was, however, is not known.

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

and claims he’s a sex addict.

Yes.  That is true.

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

I can’t imagine that a member of a jury listening to all this would find it “useless” information.

There's no guaranty that a jury will ever listen to it.  The Federal Rules of Evidence must be complied with.  I have not delved into the substantive law as to the admissibility of the recording, but I think it's premature to assume that it's admissible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From an evidentiary perspective, I question its usefulness.  There are real questions about it.  Was it coerced?  Was Bishop under the influence of medication?  Is it relevant, given that the allegation is that Bishop committed rape, and he denies that (although vaguely admits to other misconduct).

Yes, the recording is certainly damaging.  But it is relevant?  More probative than prejudicial?  Admissible?  

There are some real problems with it, from a legal standpoint.

And yet that same confusion on his part might cut against the usefulness of the recording.  It suggests that his memory is not reliable.

The legal claims are being asserted by Denson, not the as-yet-to-be-publicly-identified second person. 

That's not really a point in dispute, though.  The recording isn't needed to establish that.

The recording does establish that Denson knew about the basement room in December 2017, but that's about it.

Meh.  Those are Denson's words, not his (and it's Harvey Weinstein).

Denson used false pretenses to lure him into a private, one-on-one discussion, starts the "interview" nicely, but then switches gears and accuses him of rape, and also reminds him that she had threatened to kill him.  He's an 85-year old man recoverying from heart surgery.  If you found yourself in such circumstances, perhaps you would not rush to disagree with the accusations being leveled against you.

Indeed.  What that "inappropriate behavior" was, however, is not known.

Yes.  That is true.

There's no guaranty that a jury will ever listen to it.  The Federal Rules of Evidence must be complied with.  I have not delved into the substantive law as to the admissibility of the recording, but I think it's premature to assume that it's admissible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then why try and settle? If it’s so tenuous and unlikely, why were highly paid Church lawyers burning the midnight oil to try and pay his victim off?