JulieM Posted April 28, 2018 Author Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Calm said: So McKenna Denson is partially responsible that Bishop was unpunished because she chose not to go to the police? She did go to the police (and church leaders for years). She has chosen to pursue punishment and accountability. That must be what she feels is right for her to do. Sometimes it’s a long process too. Edited April 28, 2018 by JulieM 1
bluebell Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: Just read what I’ve stated. You’re making this into a meaning that no one is saying: My quote with how I feel: “The victim “plays a role” in and is “partially” responsible for making a choice of whether or not punishment is pursued (and there are choices about each method of punishment to pursue). That’s the truth and no blaming the victim has gone on here as to whether or not the abuser goes on to abuse another. That’s a separate issue and only the abuser makes that choice.“ No one is stating the victim is 100% accountable. Not even close. I get what you are saying (and the bolded section is not in dispute at all). As I said previously, from a practical standpoint, saying the victim is partially responsible for something that is neither negative nor positive is kind of nonsense. Yes, from a theoretical point of view it's true, but if there is no practical application or practical outcome then it seems like it means nothing.
bluebell Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, JulieM said: She did go to the police (and church leaders for years). She has chosen to pursue punishment and accountability. That must be what she feels is right for her to do. Sometimes it’s a long process too. She went to the police in 2017, right (sincere question, I can't remember)? If that's true, was she partially responsible for him being unpunished from 1984 to 2017? 1
JulieM Posted April 28, 2018 Author Posted April 28, 2018 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: She went to the police in 2017, right (sincere question, I can't remember)? If that's true, was she partially responsible for him being unpunished from 1984 to 2017? She was pursuing punishment for many, many years but through different channels at first. So, no.
Bernard Gui Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 3 hours ago, california boy said: And in that case, you are neither the abuser or the victim. You do have a responsibility to notify the authorities. Those that sexual abuse is reported to, should notify the authorities as far as I am concerned. That’s why I said, “On the other hand.”
Bernard Gui Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 3 hours ago, ALarson said: Yes, I'm aware of the laws in place. And, I agree. But, that doesn't mean a victim is ever responsible for the sexual abuser committing more abuse. That’s why I wrote, “On the other hand.” 1
Calm Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JulieM said: She did go to the police (and church leaders for years). She has chosen to pursue punishment and accountability. That must be what she feels is right for her to do. Sometimes it’s a long process too. Quote She was pursuing punishment for many, many years but through different channels at first. So, no. No, she didn't go to the police until 2017 from what she has said, though the police went to her about threatening to kill Bishop in 2010 and she did tell them then, but that was still 25 years afterwards and way after the statute of limitations allowed Bishop to be punished by any law enforcement. Smac's victim chose to pursue justice through the police, but not the Church up till now (we have no clue if she will someday pursue justice through the Church). Denson chose to pursue justice through the Church, but not the police at least for 25 years. Prior to 2017, is there any difference in pursuing accountability between the two in your view? If so, why? Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm 1
JulieM Posted April 28, 2018 Author Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Calm said: No, she didn't go to the police until 2017 from what she has said, though the police went to her about threatening to kill Bishop in 2010 and she did tell them then, but that was still 25 years afterwards and way after the statute of limitations allowed Bishop to be punished by any law enforcement. Yup. That’s why I only stated she went to “church leaders for years” and didn’t include the police part. And why I said “sometimes it’s a long process” (referring to her finally going the police and pursuing legal proceedings). I feel bad for her. She’s been trying to get justice for over 30 years. No one should critize her for doing what she feels she needs to do. Each victim has their own healing process. Edited April 28, 2018 by JulieM 2
Calm Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yup. That’s why I only stated she went to “church leaders for years” and didn’t include the police part. And why I said “sometimes it’s a long process” (referring to her finally going the police and pursuing legal proceedings). I feel bad for her. She’s been trying to get justice for over 30 years. No one should critize her for doing what she feels she needs to do. Each victim has their own healing process. When you say "yup", do you mean you see her as partially accountable (sorry for being so nitpicky, but it is a fine line that is being drawn and to understand you I want to be sure I am drawing it in the right place)? This is my issue of where I am not following you for criticizing (in the sense of analysis of what her choices meant) the victim in Smac's example...is she not likely in the middle of her own long process? If Denson is absolved of her not doing everything available to her over the years to seek justice (she states she didn't tell the mental health specialist, she didn't mention telling she told Monson in the transcript so I am assuming she didn't as not likely she would forget meeting an apostle and telling him, she as far as she has shared was never told not to go to the police and yet she didn't tell them as far as she has shared until they showed up at her door in 2010) because she finally found a way that worked for her, why would any judgment of even partial accountability for lack of punishment be made if Smac's victim went to the police, but didn't go to the Church yet or ever in her own process of finding what works for her? Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm 2
JulieM Posted April 28, 2018 Author Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Calm said: When you say "yup", do you mean you see her as partially accountable (sorry for being so nitpicky, but it is a fine line that is being drawn and to understand you I want to be sure I am drawing it in the right place)? No, just agreeing that she did eventually go to the police (in 2017) and clarifying that she tried many years earlier to have him punished via going to church authorities. And, I’ve see no one criticize the victim in smac’s story. She had choices to make and did what she felt was right for her. But she did share in the decision to pursue legal (or church) punishment. That’s all anyone has claimed here. I feel “criticism” is an inaccurate word to use when it’s only been stated that she was a part of the decision made. It’s the truth that she was. Her decision played a role in whether or not her abuser was eventually punished (not the only role but a partial one). But she made that decision because it felt right for her. We all respect that. I’ve really said all I have to say here and I think I’ve been clear about how I feel. I feel now I’m just repeating myself. I’m off now. Have a nice evening, Calm. Edited April 28, 2018 by JulieM 2
Calm Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, JulieM said: No, just agreeing that she did eventually go to the police (in 2017) and clarifying that she tried many years earlier to have him punished via going to church authorities. And, I’ve see no one criticize the victim in smac’s story. She had choices to make and did what she felt was right for her. But she did share in the decision to pursue legal (or church) punishment. That’s all anyone has claimed here. And that’s true. I’ve really said all I have to say here and I think I’ve been clear about how I feel. I feel now I’m just repeating myself. I’m off now. Have a nice evening, Calm. You too, I appreciate you taking the time. I tend to be obsessive at times in trying to understand how others are thinking. Sorry if it got annoying. It has gotten to be a huge importance in my life in many ways and the need to understand and be understood has probably bled into areas where it isn't as urgent just because it is now a habit. Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm
ALarson Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, Calm said: But it is implied. That "she's partially responsible for the negative feelings of those outside of the case"? Not at all. I've not even mentioned that. I wasn't even aware of any negative feelings from those involved or who were "outside of the case", but maybe I missed that? 20 hours ago, Calm said: Why is it wrong that justice isn't done? I never stated that it was "wrong". I've stated there is no right or wrong way for a victim to deal with their abuse so that they can move on and heal (I think I've emphasized that several times). As far as I know, that's the only times I've used the word "wrong" here. I'm hoping that smac will answer some of the numerous questions asked him here regarding why the Bishop in his story did not report this abuse to the man's leaders so they could keep him out of callings where he'd be working with youth or children. Were church leaders notified? Why no church discipline or at least a church court if there was solid forensic evidence and charges brought against this man? What happened there, smac? Edited April 29, 2018 by ALarson
Tacenda Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-031-byu-police-report-bombshells-mtc-sex-scandal-update/ It's here, and it's not good for the church. Several redacted statements uncovered. So much more to the story that was left out. The church really needs to come clean. So much to list of what is in this podcast, but for those that like truth can listen to.
provoman Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-031-byu-police-report-bombshells-mtc-sex-scandal-update/ It's here, and it's not good for the church. Several redacted statements uncovered. So much more to the story that was left out. The church really needs to come clean. So much to list of what is in this podcast, but for those that like truth can listen to. Thanks for sharing. I tried to listen to a podcast, but quickly became uninterested because claims, not because of the subject or presenter but because of the what seemed to me the conspiracy theory bent of the presenter. Yes there are multiple redacted version of the same report. Why are there different redactions; No one knows. Could it be that since BYU Police Department claims to be exempt from public records request that buy pd personnel are not adequately trained at redaction? Edited April 29, 2018 by provoman 1
ALarson Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Tacenda said: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-031-byu-police-report-bombshells-mtc-sex-scandal-update/ It's here, and it's not good for the church. Several redacted statements uncovered. So much more to the story that was left out. The church really needs to come clean. So much to list of what is in this podcast, but for those that like truth can listen to. Thank you for making us aware of this, Tacenda. I'm hoping there will be a transcript or at least someone will type up and post the highlights (or any new information revealed) as I don't get much of a chance to listen to podcasts. That guy consiglieri is impressive though (I read his threads over on the forum that smac mentioned) and he knows his stuff. He's done some great work here bringing more to light that needs to be looked at (by anyone interested in this case). I'll bet the podcasts are just as impressive to listen to. Please post if there is a written version made available, ok? Edited April 29, 2018 by ALarson
ALarson Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, provoman said: I tried to listen to a end podcast, but quickly became uninterested because claims, not because of the subject or presenter but because of the what seemed to me the conspiracy theory bent of the presenter. I'd imagine someone needs to listen to the entire podcast (not just the end) before making any conclusions here. I like gathering what written information there is, any facts that can be confirmed, and so on....and then making my own conclusions. I'll read other's thoughts, of course, but I wouldn't just listen to the end of a podcast (or just read the end of a written version) and claim it's just a "conspiracy theory". That's pretty unfair to do, IMO. Hopefully a written version will be made available and I'll read the entire thing. I'll reserve judgement until I do. 1
provoman Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'd imagine someone needs to listen to the entire podcast (not just the end) before making any conclusions here. I like gathering what written information there is, any facts that can be confirmed, and so on....and then making my own conclusions. I'll read other's thoughts, of course, but I wouldn't just listen to the end of a podcast (or just read the end of a written version) and claim it's just a "conspiracy theory". That's pretty unfair to do, IMO. Hopefully a written version will be made available and I'll read the entire thing. I'll reserve judgement until I do. I appreciate and understand your point. However, for documentation of the conspiracy theoryesque approach of consig, the current podcast starting at about 8:35 - 8:50
provoman Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 Another example of the conspiracy theoresque approach of consig starts at 19:57.
Tacenda Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 33 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'd imagine someone needs to listen to the entire podcast (not just the end) before making any conclusions here. I like gathering what written information there is, any facts that can be confirmed, and so on....and then making my own conclusions. I'll read other's thoughts, of course, but I wouldn't just listen to the end of a podcast (or just read the end of a written version) and claim it's just a "conspiracy theory". That's pretty unfair to do, IMO. Hopefully a written version will be made available and I'll read the entire thing. I'll reserve judgement until I do. Bombshell, after bombshell. I wish I was astute enough in my explaining. I will say that it mentions that the Provo police left a lot out of the report by redacting several important details. Most likely because their superior is the church. It mentions an email from McKenna that was left out of the police report. She mentions that she had a panic attack on her mission and was sent back home to get therapy or something and then had to meet with Thomas S. Monson before returning to serve her mission elsewhere. Consig, mentions how odd or strange for her to meet with an apostle vs. just her bishop or stake president also. It was pretty telling. There is also a recording of the Provo police with McKenna in Arizona that the police redacted and didn't want known, along with her 9 page email. She gives details about going through two locked doors to get to the storage room, which corroborates with the former MTC employee that came to the media verifying that there was indeed a room like she describes, two locked doors. Also, it was mentioned that a line was redacted that Bishop not only massaged the other missionary, not McKenna, on the back but her buttocks at his home. There is so much more, and it definitely sounds like a cover-up by the church. Oh, and it goes into details about McKenna and the singles' ward bishop and that he told her he would tell authorities. I took it that he told the media he didn't, but it appears questionable that he might have and said he didn't, but totally up in the air on my part. Also, it mentions when McKenna comes home during her mission she speaks with the stake president and tells him what happened to her, well he apparently had to have believed her because he issued a temple recommend and Consig brings up that one of the questions is about honesty, so he had to have believed she was telling the truth. The big question is why hasn't McKenna spoken about Pres. Monson. In my mind it's because of her possibly settling with the church in the future, and if it gets out that Pres. Monson knew of the abuse clear back then, that is explosive. Hope this helps, but I'd really suggest listening to it along with everyone else in case I got something wrong. Consig apparently has some pull in order to uncover some of the redactments. He's trying to get the recording of McKenna performed by the Provo police in Arizona, because they redacted that there is an email rough draft of McKenna's statement to them where it mentions there is a recording with her and the police. And according to Consig, it should be public information. Maybe Smac should give his feedback on the podcast for another opinion...I'm not as qualified to be making judgements about it. But did listen to it in it's entirety.
readstoomuch Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-031-byu-police-report-bombshells-mtc-sex-scandal-update/ It's here, and it's not good for the church. Several redacted statements uncovered. So much more to the story that was left out. The church really needs to come clean. So much to list of what is in this podcast, but for those that like truth can listen to. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like when reported to someone with all of the details, they were serious about trying to investigate and help her. I read all of the documents. There seems to be some real question/questions about how much church leaders were told when they interviewed her. Ron Leavitt, the bishop in 1988 seemed to know something (along the lines of McKenna and another missionary were shown pornography in the MTC basement) and did not report it. He seemed to doubt her case. Of all of the responses to Ms. McKenna, I wish I knew more about why he did not take things more seriously. I watched his interview and searched for more. Not much luck trying to understand more about Bishop Leavitt. This is all very sad. I think the Church would like to come clean. There is always the fact that they aren't going to discuss disciplines and they are involved with a legal case. I wish we could just let the process take place and withhold judgement. Tacenda, could you work more carefully at how you state your opinion?
Tacenda Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 https://medium.com/@davidscoville/timeline-of-the-joseph-bishop-sexual-abuse-scandal-77f39be1ef3a Someone put out this timeline of the events of the story, gives some insight also.
Jeanne Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 28 minutes ago, Tacenda said: https://medium.com/@davidscoville/timeline-of-the-joseph-bishop-sexual-abuse-scandal-77f39be1ef3a Someone put out this timeline of the events of the story, gives some insight also. Thank you..this was very informative and clarified some things for me.
Tacenda Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) Consig published the statement that was sent via email to the Provo police from McKenna.https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/McKenna-Denson-Rough-Draft-of-Statement-sent-to-BYU-Police-on-12-7-17-RedactedA.pdf I said the Provo PD went to Arizona in my post above, I got that wrong, they went to Colorado. It sure helps to actually read the statement vs. listening to it on the podcast. ETA: Another link to the letters that Consig, wrote the Provo police. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/GRAMA-Appeal-4-18-18.output.pdf https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/GRAMA-Clarification-Letter-on-2nd-Request-041818.pdf Edited April 29, 2018 by Tacenda
Calm Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) Quote She mentions that she had a panic attack on her mission and was sent back home to get therapy or something and then had to meet with Thomas S. Monson before returning to serve her mission elsewhere. Consig, mentions how odd or strange for her to meet with an apostle vs. just her bishop or stake president also. It was pretty telling. I don't see it as that odd when it was a First Presidency member who had to approve her going out on her mission due to her having a baby out of wedlock** the first time AND the reason she got sent back to Provo was she made an accusation of rape. Both are very serious sexual matters so it makes sense to me that the procedure would require a higher clearance. She specifically says she hasn't told anyone yet at that time, that she refused to tell the therapist what happened; at that point there would be no reason for a coverup by pulling in Elder Monson because no one else would have known what her issues were. Quote In my mind it's because of her possibly settling with the church in the future, and if it gets out that Pres. Monson knew of the abuse clear back then, that is explosive. On the other hand, she was very, very clear about her meeting with the therapist and how she refused to tell him just because she didn't like him (that is odd unless you consider it from a victim's point of view of feeling safe with a total stranger when it has only been a few months since she was assaulted, then it makes total sense imo). If she also refused the opportunity to tell Elder Monson, that makes at least three times**** she said she had an interview with someone from the Church who she could have told when it could have been easily investigated. While I believe that for an abuse survivor that would make total sense in that she wasn't yet ready to share the tremendous pain she was trying to make sense of with anyone, if she did not say anything back then she probably realizes that it puts the Church in a better position because there were at least two times where they intentionally provided her with an opportunity to share information about her rape claim and what caused it (therapist, Monson), including one where she describes the situation as being heavily pushed to share. If she didn't open up at that time, it also explains to me why later on why her YSA bishop did not believe her if she told him of this and why leaders in 2010 might have believed that it was a much more equal she said/he said situation when Bishop denied everything when confronted (seems likely this would be documented and possibly shared with Bishop's local leaders when the info was passed on). **It is, from what I have read elsewhere by those who would know, standard procedure; I believe that Denson mentioned it in the QandA section of the press conference as well. Exceptions are made when women have had out of wedlock babies if they are given up for adoption (thus the child would not be dependent on the mother for their support; obviously besides mission presidents and wives, since they don't send out couple missionaries these days that have children at home, they would not send out single parents with dependent children); these exceptions are cleared by the First Presidency. (I would not be surprised if the First Presidency clearance is noted on missionary records and this may have been what allowed Bishop to single her and other women out at the MTC.) *****Her mission president when he likely interviewed her about the rape claim prior to sending her back out to Provo (though she did not specify in the letter that he saw her before he sent her out...he may not have given the claim was attempted rape because he felt it would be inappropriate, but it seems likely; the mental health specialist the Church provided for her to talk to; and Elder Monson. Edited April 29, 2018 by Calm 1
Honorentheos Posted April 29, 2018 Posted April 29, 2018 On 4/28/2018 at 10:03 AM, ALarson said: At the very least, in the story that smac related, there should have been church discipline followed through, IMO, or the Bishop should have informed church leaders of the abuser so it could have been looked into in order to protect future potential victims. This is what gets to me. I'd be curious what of the following I have wrong: SMAC personally knows the victim who he describes as a friend, who claims to have been sexually assaulted. SMAC believes this persons claims, and believes there is strong evidence to support it being the case. SMAC knows this person's attorney who apparently was advising the victim of said assault when they reported the assault to police. SMAC knows that the police pursued a criminal case against the accused perpetrator of the assault, but that the case fell through due to reasons other than not being able to actually build a compelling winnable case on the part of the prosecution. The accused is a member of the LDS faith, and SMAC knows who this person is and believes them to be the perpetrator of sexual assault. SMAC appears to believe that the accused has not been called to face disciplinary action on the part of the LDS church for their violation of eternal laws in committing a despicable act of violence and violation against a fellow human being whom SMAC knows personally and calls a friend. Any person who has reasonable cause could inform appropriate ecclesiastical leadership of someone committing such a heinous act as sexual assault. Church discipline does not require the victim to confront their assailant in Church court, and for all intents and purposes the otherwise strong forensic evidence and testimony of a Bishop in the Church should be compelling for Church leadership to make a judgment as to the fitness of the accused to full fellowship in the Church. No one believes that the accuses has actually faced Church discipline.
Recommended Posts