Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

[Honorentheos]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  I am still weighing the evidence.

But not accepting her story 100% is not equivalent to calling her a liar.  Can you appreciate that?

Okay.  I'd like to see this evidence.  Calm?  Can you help out?

I'm not sure that adds much to the body of evidence.  We already knew he met with her and other sister missionaries.  That he pulled her out of class is not evidence that he took her alone to a basement room and forcibly raped her.

I try to be concise, but also precise.  This is particularly so when dealing with sensitive and difficult issues like this one.

Proverbially speaking, you seem to be looking at the forest of allegations and evidence.  I am looking at individual trees.

I'm fine with that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In his interview with the police Bishop admits to inappropriate activities occurring between himself and young women at the MTC. He describes asking a woman to expose her breasts to him. He comments that there wasn't  TV or bed in the room in question. In his interview with the victim he also confirms many pieces of information.

BTW, I'd be interested in knowing why you didn't report the rape of your friend to their ecclesiastical leadership and seem to be ok with the Church not knowing there is a rapist at large pretending to be a faithful member.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't speak to what an anxiety attack might have caused her to do or claim.

I'm not asking you to speak to it.  I was simply paraphrasing what Denson herself claimed about why she fabricated a rape claim.

Are you disputing that she did this?  Or are you disputing why she did it?

Quote

All we have is Leavitt v Denson on the Asay claim. 

Well, perhaps not.  Per page 29 of the transcript:

Quote

I reported this to Salt Lake when I came home from our mission before I got married.  They sent Elder Asay to me.

Elder Asay interviewed me, he said he would talk to you directly. I never heard anything. Apparently Elder Asay didn't interview you. 

However, Denson apparently told a different story to the Tribune:

Quote

The Colorado woman told The Tribune she reported her sexual-assault allegation to her LDS singles ward bishop in Utah County in 1987, after serving a mission. She offered the bishop as a corroborating witness, saying he arranged for her to speak with Asay, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy.

But the bishop, who asked not to be named, said in an interview with The Tribune that she did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct. He said he didn’t believe her, nor did he tell any superiors.

”I felt the allegations were groundless,” he recalled this week. “They were so farfetched and not internally logical.”

So did Denson "report[] this to Salt Lake" directly?  If yes, then that contradicts what she told the Tribune.  If no, then we do indeed have a "Leavitt v Denson on the Asay claim."

So whom do you believe?  Denson or Leavitt?

Denson says that she reported her "sexual-assault allegation" to Leavitt.  She even went so far as to tell the Tribune that her bishop would be a "corroborating witness" to her claim.

And yet Leavitt is on record as saying that

1. Denson made allegations that Bishop took her "and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography" 
2. Denson did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct," and
3. That he (Leavitt) did not report this to the Church or to the police ("'I didn't think it had much credence. I wasn't going to risk sullying the reputation of someone based on that kind of a report, Leavitt said.").

When we do as Denson recommended to the Tribune, and look to Leavitt a "corroborating witness," we find that he sort of undermines several key elements of her narrative (that she reported a rape, that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay, etc.).

Quote

I see no compelling evidence to believe one over the other.

And yet . . . we need to "believe one over the other."

At the moment, I'm tending toward believing Leavitt.  I think she reported what Leavitt recounts (Bishop took Denson and another sister missionary to the basement room and showed them pornography), that he (Leavitt) did not find her claims credible and therefore did not report them to the Church or to law enforcement, and also that he did not arrange for a meeting between Denson and Elder Asay.

In other words, at present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  

But I'm not wedded to that conclusion.  We'll see what happens.

Quote

Bishop has confessed to much of what Denson accused him of.

Not really.  She has accused him of "(forcible) rape and sexual assault."  He has not confessed to such things.

Quote

I agree that Leavitt's response to Denson is not a big legal issue. 

But his testimony about what Denson told him could be a significant legal issue.

Quote

I'm not sure how civil suits work but I don't feel that the Church can show that it has dealt with it as your statement above implies. 

"Dealt with it" refers to...?  (I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand what you are referring to here.)

Quote

The Church had much of this evidence long before MormonLeaks broke the story

Yes, but long after the statute of limitations had run.  And given the Church's lack of civil authority, and the concomitant lack of evidence againt Bishop, I'm not sure there's much the Church could do.

Quote

and it appears that they were still covering it up and protecting Bishop's reputation.

"Still covering it up?"  There was no cover-up in the first instance, let alone a continuation of it.

And bull.  The Church has condemned the misconduct of which Bishop is accused.

That the Church hasn't publicly condemned him, before any findings of fact or anything, is not problematic at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

In his interview with the police Bishop admits to inappropriate activities occurring between himself and young women at the MTC.

But not rape or attempted rape.

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

He describes asking a woman to expose her breasts to him.

Yes.

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

He comments that there wasn't  TV or bed in the room in question. In his interview with the victim he also confirms many pieces of information.

And yet he denies the claim of rape or attempted rape.

That lines up with Leavitt's statement (attributed to Denson).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Smac, do you have a wife and daughter?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was simply paraphrasing what Denson herself claimed about why she fabricated a rape claim.

Do you have a quote from her on that?  (I'm not doubting you but wasn't aware she'd done this....it's hard to keep up with everything!)

If she make a "rape claim", was that one looked into by the church leaders?

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

BYU Police report, page 5:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/1/1e/2017-11-28-Brigham_Young_University_Police-Incident_Report_REDACTED-Post_Audio_Leak.pdf

Thanks, Calm!  I appreciate you posting that source  

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

You are referring to the settlement negotiations that Denson was participating in?

Just referring to the fact that the church knew about this case for months before MormonLeaks let the rest of us know.

[esodije]

A lot of speculation about this case seems to be based on misunderstanding how the MTC operates and is set up.  It is heavily emphasized from Day One that one must remain with his/her companion at all times, even to use the restroom or shower.  People indeed get called out of class quite often for this or that purpose, but their companions always go with them.  (I remember having to go down to the BYU campus 3-4 times with my MTC companion, who had pen pals in Eastern Europe, to talk to a professor about possibly translating the BoM into several Slavic languages using Esperanto as a go-between.). Even if Denson or her companion stated that the MTC president specifically requested that she come to see him without her companion, the story would become more plausible—because at least they would have addressed it, and because the circumstance would obviously take on a sinister angle.  The MTC is always buzzing with activity, and people are constantly going here and there; there are certainly quiet, secluded cubbies in some places, but the main halls are rarely people-free.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

A lot of speculation about this case seems to be based on misunderstanding how the MTC operates and is set up.  It is heavily emphasized from Day One that one must remain with his/her companion at all times, even to use the restroom or shower.  People indeed get called out of class quite often for this or that purpose, but their companions always go with them.  (I remember having to go down to the BYU campus 3-4 times with my MTC companion, who had pen pals in Eastern Europe, to talk to a professor about possibly translating the BoM into several Slavic languages using Esperanto as a go-between.). Even if Denson or her companion stated that the MTC president specifically requested that she come to see him without her companion, the story would become more plausible—because at least they would have addressed it, and because the circumstance would obviously take on a sinister angle.  The MTC is always buzzing with activity, and people are constantly going here and there; there are certainly quiet, secluded cubbies in some places, but the main halls are rarely people-free.

So do you believe that Mckenna Denson is lying and none of this happened at the MTC while she was there?  That she's fabricated the entire story?

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not asking you to speak to it.  I was simply paraphrasing what Denson herself claimed about why she fabricated a rape claim.

Are you disputing that she did this?  Or are you disputing why she did it?

Well, perhaps not.  Per page 29 of the transcript:

However, Denson apparently told a different story to the Tribune:

So did Denson "report[] this to Salt Lake" directly?  If yes, then that contradicts what she told the Tribune.  If no, then we do indeed have a "Leavitt v Denson on the Asay claim."

So whom do you believe?  Denson or Leavitt?

Denson says that she reported her "sexual-assault allegation" to Leavitt.  She even went so far as to tell the Tribune that her bishop would be a "corroborating witness" to her claim.

And yet Leavitt is on record as saying that

1. Denson made allegations that Bishop took her "and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography" 
2. Denson did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct," and
3. That he (Leavitt) did not report this to the Church or to the police ("'I didn't think it had much credence. I wasn't going to risk sullying the reputation of someone based on that kind of a report, Leavitt said.").

When we do as Denson recommended to the Tribune, and look to Leavitt a "corroborating witness," we find that he sort of undermines several key elements of her narrative (that she reported a rape, that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay, etc.).

And yet . . . we need to "believe one over the other."

At the moment, I'm tending toward believing Leavitt.  I think she reported what Leavitt recounts (Bishop took Denson and another sister missionary to the basement room and showed them pornography), that he (Leavitt) did not find her claims credible and therefore did not report them to the Church or to law enforcement, and also that he did not arrange for a meeting between Denson and Elder Asay.

In other words, at present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  

But I'm not wedded to that conclusion.  We'll see what happens.

Not really.  She has accused him of "(forcible) rape and sexual assault."  He has not confessed to such things.

But his testimony about what Denson told him could be a significant legal issue.

"Dealt with it" refers to...?  (I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand what you are referring to here.)

Yes, but long after the statute of limitations had run.  And given the Church's lack of civil authority, and the concomitant lack of evidence againt Bishop, I'm not sure there's much the Church could do.

"Still covering it up?"  There was no cover-up in the first instance, let alone a continuation of it.

And bull.  The Church has condemned the misconduct of which Bishop is accused.

That the Church hasn't publicly condemned him, before any findings of fact or anything, is not problematic at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not disputing that she fabricated the parking lot rape claim.  She admits to that.

I don't see a conflict with Denson's statements regarding Asay... she was under the impression that she reported something to her bishop who reported it to Salt Lake.

I'm not inclined to believe Leavitt over Denson.  He has already shown a proclivity to protect church leaders.  We know he spoke to someone in church headquarters on three occasions prior to speaking to the media.  We don't know what was discussed in those phone calls but for me, the sum total of what Leavitt has said does not lead me to place a great deal of trust in him.

Yes, there is still a cover up.  The Church was aware of the case and from all we can tell, was in discussions to settle and pursue an NDA.  BYU PD (wholly owned and controlled by the Church) continues to keep material evidence from the public despite GRAMA requests. 

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Just referring to the fact that the church knew about this case for months before MormonLeaks let the rest of us know.

And so did Denson.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I was simply paraphrasing what Denson herself claimed about why she fabricated a rape claim.

Do you have a quote from her on that?  (I'm not doubting you but wasn't aware she'd done this....it's hard to keep up with everything!)

If she make a "rape claim", was that one looked into by the church leaders?

Well, her ex-husband and another unnamed family member referenced it here (from an interview with The Republic)...

Quote

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."

I think Denson herself also referenced it during the recording (see page 43 of the transript).  Right in the middle of an extended exposition about the effect Bishop's purported misconduct had on her life, she says this:

Quote

And I knew I wouldn't be the last one [to be abused by Bishop], but I never said a word. I went on my mission, supposed to [REDACTED], pretended somebody in the f****ng parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack and I didn't want to tell anybody. I didn't tell anybody. I went home, I didn't go home, I went to [REDACTED], stayed with some Mormon family. Sent me to see some therapist. 

So Denson's family members allege that Denson has reported "two additional occasions" of her being sexually assaulted, one of which Denson herself corroborates (the one that supposedly took place while she was a missionary in D.C.), and also which Denson admits was fabricated ("{I} pretended somebody in the f****ng parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack...").

As for whether it was "looked into by the church leaders," I don't know.  Perhaps she fessed up to the fabrication when she met with the counselor in Salt Lake, such that the Church either didn't investigate or else stopped any investigation that was ongoing.  Denson has never complained that the Church didn't act on her fabricated rape claim, so I assume things about it were sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

A lot of speculation about this case seems to be based on misunderstanding how the MTC operates and is set up.  It is heavily emphasized from Day One that one must remain with his/her companion at all times, even to use the restroom or shower.  People indeed get called out of class quite often for this or that purpose, but their companions always go with them.  (I remember having to go down to the BYU campus 3-4 times with my MTC companion, who had pen pals in Eastern Europe, to talk to a professor about possibly translating the BoM into several Slavic languages using Esperanto as a go-between.). Even if Denson or her companion stated that the MTC president specifically requested that she come to see him without her companion, the story would become more plausible—because at least they would have addressed it, and because the circumstance would obviously take on a sinister angle.  The MTC is always buzzing with activity, and people are constantly going here and there; there are certainly quiet, secluded cubbies in some places, but the main halls are rarely people-free.

How many witnesses do you need on this aspect?  Denson stated that she was taken into Bishop's office AND the "preparation" room.  Bishop has confessed that he took her there alone (both to Denson and the BYU PD).  Denson's MTC teacher has stated that Denson was taken out of class to meet with Bishop.  A former MTC employee confirmed that the "preparation room" exists (or existed).

You can keep claiming that this is not how things work.  But the fact that Bishop took Denson alone into the room is fairly well established at this point.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

And so did Denson.

Denson isn't the leader of the church with a stewardship.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

BYU PD (wholly owned and controlled by the Church) continues to keep material evidence from the public despite GRAMA requests. 

of good grief, this is a regurgitation of rfm's conspiracy

[provoman]

Just now, rockpond said:

Denson isn't the leader of the church with a stewardship.

she knew and kept quiet about it, which makes her part of the cover up you keep mentioning...right?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

of good grief, this is a regurgitation of rfm's conspiracy

It's not a conspiracy... BYU PD's refusal to release evidence after repeated GRAMA requests is something that is actually happening right now.  Why would they not just release the reports and recordings?

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

she knew and kept quiet about it, which makes her part of the cover up you keep mentioning...right?

She has actually been telling people for several decades now.  That's not a cover up.

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Denson isn't the leader of the church with a stewardship.

I am curious can the Church EVER begins negotiations and you nit accus the of a cover up? I mean you and Alarsib seem to have an implausible standard, that being that one party can negotiate out of view of the public but the Chur h must pronounce names of accused during the same negotiation process? 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

She has actually been telling people for several decades now.  That's not a cover up.

she was involved in negotiations and kept quiet....she was a party to your alleged cover up

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, her ex-husband and another unnamed family member referenced it here (from an interview with the The Republic😞

I think Denson herself also referenced it during the recording (see page 43 of the transript).  Right in the middle of an extended exposition about the effect Bishop's purported misconduct had on her life, she says this:

So Denson's family members allege that Denson has reported "two additional occasions" of her being sexually assaulted, one of which Denson herself corroborates (while she was a missionary), and also which Denson admits was fabricated ("{I} pretended somebody in the f****ng parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack...").

Thanks, smac.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am curious can the Church EVER begins negotiations and you nit accus the of a cover up?

Yes.  What they have done here goes beyond that.

Consider, for example, the church press releases after the Denson recording was leaked vs. what we now know that they knew before the leak.  And, consider the actions of the BYU PD.  It isn't a cover up because they didn't tell us that they were negotiating an NDA.  It's a cover up because of their actions to keep it a secret.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

she was involved in negotiations and kept quiet....she was a party to your alleged cover up

Let's review:

Denson told her Bishop, Elder Asay, her Stake President, and BYU PD.  She called church headquarters.

If she had a stewardship responsibility to me, or the membership of the church, your bizarre claim here could have some merit.  But she doesn't.  This is a ridiculous claim you are making that Denson was somehow involved in the cover up.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not disputing that she fabricated the parking lot rape claim.  She admits to that.

Okay.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see a conflict with Denson's statements regarding Asay... she was under the impression that she reported something to her bishop who reported it to Salt Lake.

But it's more than that.  She says that she disclosed to Ron Leavitt, that Ron Leavitt arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay, and also that Ron Leavitt would corroborate her statement on this point ("The Colorado woman told The Tribune she reported her sexual-assault allegation to her LDS singles ward bishop in Utah County in 1987, after serving a mission.  She offered the bishop as a corroborating witness, saying he arranged for her to speak with Asay, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy."). 

Leavitt, however, denies reporting anything to the Church (which, I think, necessarily includes her claim that "he arranged for her to speak with Asay").

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not inclined to believe Leavitt over Denson.  He has already shown a proclivity to protect church leaders. 

So he has a potential motive to lie.  I get that.

But couldn't you say the same thing about Denson?  She is pursuing money damages against the deep-pocketed LDS Church.

Moreover, what about her "proclivities" as to honesty?  She is already on record as fabricating a rape claim while she was a missionary in D.C.  And her ex-husband and another family member also say there is yet another rape claim beyond that one.

And what about these incidents:

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."

What do you make of Denson's recent arrest in New Mexico for identity theft?  Her 1999 case where she (falsely, it seems) claimed she had been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability" and concluded that her report was "unfounded?"

How do you factor these into gauging Denson's honesty?  Why do you privilege her say-so over Leavitt's, particularly when she encouraged the Salt Lake Tribune to listen to Leavitt?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We know he spoke to someone in church headquarters on three occasions prior to speaking to the media. 

CFR, if you please.

Denson spoke with her attorneys many times "prior to speaking to the media."  Does that make her untrustworthy?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We don't know what was discussed in those phone calls but for me, the sum total of what Leavitt has said does not lead me to place a great deal of trust in him.

Why?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, there is still a cover up. 

Well, no.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church was aware of the case and from all we can tell, was in discussions to settle and pursue an NDA. 

Denson's attorneys were the ones who approached the Church and initiated confidential negotiations.  Legal disputes involving sensitive matters are routinely settled confidentially, particularly where there is a victim of sexual abuse involved (that would be . . . Denson).

So the LDS Church complies with Denson's attorneys request for confidential discussions, and this is - in your view - a "cover up."

The mind reels.  It is absurd stuff like this that make it difficult for people like me to put much stock into the neverending faultfinding by critics and opponents of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  What they have done here goes beyond that.

Consider, for example, the church press releases after the Denson recording was leaked vs. what we now know that they knew before the leak.  And, consider the actions of the BYU PD.  It isn't a cover up because they didn't tell us that they were negotiating an NDA.  It's a cover up because of their actions to keep it a secret.

Something tells me that negotiations are "kept secret".

And who or what entity is keeping "it a secret"? Are you referring to the redactions - are you saying the Church is at fault for the redactions; even though rfm makes no definitive statement about who is responsible?