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

[provoman]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  Let it go.  It's been explained to you several times by several posters.  You're making yourself look foolish here.

Nope sorry. It has not been explained.  Even consig could not explain it correctly. 

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did you edit out the most significant part to my post, which specifically addresses the question you are asking? 

Sorry.  I didn’t see you edited your post after I quoted you.  I’ll reread it and see if it makes sense now.

[provoman]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Edited May 1, 2018 by provoman

[Honorentheos]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Or it is because if he shares any more info, he risks sharing identifying information.

He could tell us that he reported a person he believes is a rapist to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities and that they took appropriate action without sharing anything that would be identifying. That seems like a reasonable request, too. Smac knows of a wolf among the flock who committed sexual assault. That's crazy that he's done nothing.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You do realize that Bishop has confessed on two separate occasions to much of the depravity alleged by Denson, right?  And that he has self-described as a sex addict and that he told this to at least one ecclesiastical leader?

The only 'depraved' sexual thing he confessed to doing though in the transcript was asking his wife to expose herself during dinner iirc, though that may have been Denson saying it and he confirmed it sort of by saying "he had a sexless marriage".  A "frisky" backrub may or may not have been depraved, he didn't provide enough details in the transcript to determine what lines were crossed.

The BYU Police report is the only source for actual sexual abuse, imo.  The transcript is too vague with details and has all the women instigating the encounters.

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

 

Do I think she’s lying?  No—no one goes to those lengths to propagate something they know is untrue.  However, I also think—as turned out to be the case in the Duke lacrosse case—that the accuser may be delusional.  Having gone through two months at the MTC myself in 1979, I find the whole scenario to be possible, but highly improbable.  To put a known sexual predator in charge of the MTC would not only be a massive procedural breakdown, but would entail depravity on a level that I’ve never seen in the church.  And for an MTC president, even an out-of-control horndog, to attempt to diddle sister missionaries in so close and non-private a facility as the MTC would be reckless—never mind depraved—beyond anything I could imagine.

Bishop has confessed to much of this (to his church leaders and some on the tape....I haven't listened to what he told the BYU police) and to inappropriate behavior with other women due to him claiming to have a sex addiction.

The teacher corroborated that Denson was pulled out of class.

Bishop's room in the basement has also been corroborated by a witness.

And, another victim has come forward.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

The injunctive-relief thing (request to order the church to change its interview policies) was the most-ludicrous part of the complaint.  Denson’s lawyers must have thought they were in the 9th Circuit or something.

Even if the MTC president could pull Denson out of class without her companion, multiple people would have taken note.  Her companion’s recollections in that regard would be interesting to know.

The redacted police reports include law enforcement following up with one of her instructors over the phone who confirmed she remembered her as a student at the MTC and that she was occasionally pulled out of class. The interviewing detective asked if she remembered who was the MTC president at the time which she didn't. They asked her if they told her a name would she recall it then which she said she would. When they asked if Joseph Bishop had been the MTC president she confirmed that was the case.

[Honorentheos]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only 'depraved' sexual thing he confessed to doing though in the transcript was asking his wife to expose herself during dinner iirc, though that may have been Denson saying it and he confirmed it sort of by saying "he had a sexless marriage".  A "frisky" backrub may or may not have been depraved, he didn't provide enough details in the transcript to determine what lines were crossed.

The BYU Police report is the only source for actual sexual abuse, imo.  The transcript is too vague with details and has all the women instigating the encounters.

In the police report dated 12/19/17 Bishop states that he asked her to show him her breasts and that she did. He is denying that he raped her but not that he was engaging in sexually harassing and other types of behavior that it would be an understatement to say was unbecoming of an MTC president.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

 

Do I think she’s lying?  No—no one goes to those lengths to propagate something they know is untrue.  However, I also think—as turned out to be the case in the Duke lacrosse case—that the accuser may be delusional.  Having gone through two months at the MTC myself in 1979, I find the whole scenario to be possible, but highly improbable.  To put a known sexual predator in charge of the MTC would not only be a massive procedural breakdown, but would entail depravity on a level that I’ve never seen in the church.  And for an MTC president, even an out-of-control horndog, to attempt to diddle sister missionaries in so close and non-private a facility as the MTC would be reckless—never mind depraved—beyond anything I could imagine.

I’m thinking you may benefit from reading a timeline (one has been posted or you can search and easily find it) and the podcasts that consig has done.  You don’t seem real familiar with the actual evidence and statements that have been made.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

He could tell us that he reported a person he believes is a rapist to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities and that they took appropriate action without sharing anything that would be identifying. That seems like a reasonable request, too. Smac knows of a wolf among the flock who committed sexual assault. That's crazy that he's done nothing.

Just because you can't think of reasons he hasn't reported it doesn't mean it's crazy.  I can think of very good reasons not to share the info with the Church in order to prevent harm or any church leaders if they do know to hold off on taking action since the Church can only excommunicate and has no way of enforcing any conditions outside of church on the predator in a situation where it appears the police are not doing anything to restrict the man's actions given the charges were dropped or never filed.  The Church is not a law enforcement organization and shouldn't step in to act like one if the police aren't.  Not going to speculate to details about this case, but hopefully that will encourage you to push your own brain to consider the possibilities.

I do know of another case where several victims were afraid to say anything because the predator had said threatening and absolutely vicious comments and constantly commented how he concealed carried.  The victims were concerned that if they complained and the man was kicked out of the community (not church), he would react violently.  They were afraid for their own lives, the lives of their friends and families and anyone else who happened to be there if he went postal.  Walking around with bodyguards for even a week, let alone the rest of his life was not an option.  It was a very credible threat.  They felt they were in a damned if you don't, likely dead if you do situation.  In this case, the women learned of each other, decided to band together and move against him, which first achieved nothing, but with some creativity they upped the stake.  Hopefully he is actually a coward (he sounds like one to me due to how he reacted when confronted) and the show of force will make him back down permanently.

A student of my husband's came to tell him she was dropping out of college for a year or two as she had a stalker that was showing up at each of her classes, etc.  He had done nothing yet that the police could act on.  If she reported it however, likely he would have been immediately kicked off University grounds (my husband told her he would go with her to report and support her in any way possible).  She chose the option of dropping out and leaving the area instead because even if he had been managed to be restricted off the campus (it was unlikely they would have given her a security escort for the next three years until graduation, so if he was the patient type....and it's a big enough campus to be unobserved in if one tries imo), he knew where she lived and campus police could do nothing about that.

Victims have to weigh those kinds of choices all the time; punishment, even if limited, of the predator is a good thing, might even get them to back down.  Otoh, we hear of plenty of cases where the opposite reaction took place and victims were injured, even killed when the predator felt threatened or even just resisted.

Perhaps this is a similar situation.

These situations are often very complicated, especially if violence is involved (and having significant forensic evidence of assault suggests that).  I think it is foolish to reduce it to a simplistic "just report it to authorities" as if there couldn't be any highly problematic consequences involved.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only 'depraved' sexual thing he confessed to doing though in the transcript was asking his wife to expose herself during dinner iirc, though that may have been Denson saying it and he confirmed it sort of by saying "he had a sexless marriage".  A "frisky" backrub may or may not have been depraved, he didn't provide enough details in the transcript to determine what lines were crossed.

The BYU Police report is the only source for actual sexual abuse, imo.  The transcript is too vague with details and has all the women instigating the encounters.

It's been quite a while since I listened to Denson's "interview" audio recording but my recollection is that he confessed to some level of impropriety with Denson.  And he didn't confess to the rape but he didn't deny it either.  The best he could come up with is that he didn't remember.  He also repeatedly stated that he was a sex addict and that he had done inappropriate things at other times in his life.  He also confessed to taking a sister missionary, along, into a locked back room of the MTC.  These are the things I was referring to when I spoke of confessed depravity.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Bishop has confessed to much of this (to his church leaders...) to inappropriate behavior with other women due to him claiming to have a sex addiction.

One church leader iirc, Wells, preMTC.  He said he never talked to Asay and it is reported he denied both accusations to his local leaders in 2010.

"Inappropriate behaviour with other women..." actually came out to Inappropriate behaviour by other women to him except for the one other MTC victim...not confessed to church leaders, but a "frisky" backrub confessed to Denson and asking her to expose herself to police.****

His confessions are really being inflated, imo, especially in terms of what he alleged shared with church leaders and Denson.

Sex addiction could mean to him he had problems with porn (this works well with Leavitt's report and how Bishop describes his problems at the end of the Denson interview when he is the most articulate and volunteering new information rather than just confirming what Denson said or apologizing while saying he didn't remember doing it).

The police report, imo, is the only truly damaging information imo.  Everything else can be explained away as minor stuff that was not his fault or never went very far (don't think it should be, but limited specific details given allow for this).

***add-on:  should have been more accurate and used "physically inappropriate" behavior; I believe his verbal behaviour was also inappropriate as explained in later posts, but I also think his lawyer could argue while inappropriate for going too far with sexual information, that it was a well intentioned amateur counseling attempt.  Since Bishop has to ask "was I trying to titilate you?" (Hopefully the quote is right) and there is some confusion within details, it could be claimed Denson is misrepresenting the actual context and content and Bishop doesn't correct because he doesn't remember.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[esodije]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Such as?  Can you specifically name which pieces of evidence in this case "have been plucked out of 'the blue'"?

I make that statement as a general proposition.  It’s human nature to read too much into relatively insignificant bits of evidence, or to make things up entirely, when the evidence doesn’t quite support the conclusions we’ve already arrived at.  The Left in this country seems to have a particular knack for flogging all the wrong cases in service of a narrative.  And the narrative in this case (LDS church = bad; rape accusations = always true) engenders a huge amount of emotion.

[esodije]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m thinking you may benefit from reading a timeline (one has been posted or you can search and easily find it) and the podcasts that consig has done.  You don’t seem real familiar with the actual evidence and statements that have been made.  

Don’t patronize me.  I’ve listened to every agonizing minute of the Bishop interview, and perhaps you could benefit from a couple of conversations with geriatrics to know (a) how they tend to agree with almost everything suggested to them, (b) how telling it is that, even after nearly three hours of being fed the idea that it happened, Bishop still couldn’t remember the assault on Denson, and (c) how unreliable geriatrics tend to be as witnesses in general.  As for the rest of the “evidence,” I’ll wait for someone more level-headed than RFM, or MormonLeaks, or some blogger or podcaster, to lay it out before I buy into it.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

One church leader iirc, Wells, preMTC.  He said he never talked to Asay and it is reported he denied both accusations to his local leaders in 2010.

"Inappropriate behaviour with other women..." actually came out to Inappropriate behaviour by other women to him except for the one other MTC victim...not confessed to church leaders, but a "frisky" backrub confessed to Denson and asking her to expose herself to police.

His confessions are really being inflated, imo, especially in terms of what he alleged shared with church leaders and Denson.

Sex addiction could mean to him he had problems with porn (this works well with Leavitt's report and how Bishop describes his problems at the end of the Denson interview when he is the most articulate and volunteering new information rather than just confirming what Denson said or apologizing while saying he didn't remember doing it).

The police report, imo, is the only truly damaging information imo.  Everything else can be explained away as minor stuff that was not his fault or never went very far (don't think it should be, but limited specific details given allow for this).

The “frisky” backrub was confessed in both the police interview and the meeting with Denson.  (The police interview clarified that the “frisky” part was feeling the sister missionaries buttocks.)

Do you disagree that he confessed to inappropriate behavior with Denson in both her interview and to the police?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

Don’t patronize me.  I’ve listened to every agonizing minute of the Bishop interview, and perhaps you could benefit from a couple of conversations with geriatrics to know (a) how they tend to agree with almost everything suggested to them, (b) how telling it is that, even after nearly three hours of being fed the idea that it happened, Bishop still couldn’t remember the assault on Denson, and (c) how unreliable geriatrics tend to be as witnesses in general.  As for the rest of the “evidence,” I’ll wait for someone more level-headed than RFM, or MormonLeaks, or some blogger or podcaster, to lay it out before I buy into it.

The police report, the attorney letter, the audio recording and transcript of Denson are all out there online. Corroborating witnesses have been documented by various news outlets.  You don’t need to believe bloggers or podcasters. 

You can even question Bishop’s clarity.  And if so, then really the only question is not if there was impropriety and covering up to protect Bishop but just to what degree the impropriety reaches. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's been quite a while since I listened to Denson's "interview" audio recording but my recollection is that he confessed to some level of impropriety with Denson.  And he didn't confess to the rape but he didn't deny it either.  The best he could come up with is that he didn't remember.  He also repeatedly stated that he was a sex addict and that he had done inappropriate things at other times in his life.  He also confessed to taking a sister missionary, along, into a locked back room of the MTC.  These are the things I was referring to when I spoke of confessed depravity.

Iirc, He said he didn't remember anything except talking to her privately and taking her to the basement in the tape, but no specific details were given and he specifically said he didn't remember raping her.  He was quite insistent on that in his tone imo even while he had been congenially pretty much saying "yes" to everything else she said.

Unless you can point out that the inappropriate things that were specified by him were actually depraved, just him saying he did inappropriate things and calling himself a sex addict but not actually explaining his behaviors...I don't see how this can be labeled "confessed depravity".

The back room was known as an additional office by the rest of the MTC.  He also described in very great detail and articulate words (quite different to much of his other speech when responding to her) how traumatized sisters sought him out for help (rather than him calling them out) and being required to counsel them even though he felt out of his depth and begged church leaders to get a professional counselor.  It can all be painted as him trying his best as an amateur counselor and crossing some lines a professional would know to avoid.  The use of the downstairs basement office can be passed off as him believing the sisters would appreciate greater privacy or to feel like he really cared about them as individuals, was treating them as more than a duty by sharing other parts of his life than just the four walls of his public office (Denson described her expectation in that fashion iirc).

A decent lawyer can credibly explain the transcript as him confessing to an addiction of fantasizing or porn and a counseling attempts where he shared personal struggles in order to help the sisters feel like they were not alone, that he understood emotional hardships, etc.

When the only physically inappropriate things with women that are confessed to are two women being inappropriate to him where no response from him is described, a private interaction between him and his wife, and a backrub asked for by a sister missionary...do you really see those as inherently depraved?

I think given overall knowledge...the second victim reporting sexual assault and the police interview, the information provided in the transcript can assume a different perspective, but if taken on its own it does nothing to support depraved sexual behaviours.  At most it shows a weird self aggrandizing  world view that everything revolves around him (his second wife had a troubled first marriage which led to extreme pain and hangups for her, which led to their divorce, which led to him being in a place and time where his life was saved by a world's expert; he gets possessed by the demons who had been troubling a sister missionary when he tries to save her) that could explain why he eagerly embraces the sex addict label because he loves to dramatize everything about himself as well as in his view he is never at fault for trouble in his personal relationships (the divorce happened because of his second wife's issues, his lack of a normal relationship with his first wife as well as being insulted as short when he was a kid...this is why he had any sexual hangups, the three women there was anything physical with made either all the moves or the first one).

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Just because you can't think of reasons he hasn't reported it doesn't mean it's crazy.  I can think of very good reasons not to share the info with the Church in order to prevent harm or any church leaders if they do know to hold off on taking action since the Church can only excommunicate and has no way of enforcing any conditions outside of church on the predator in a situation where it appears the police are not doing anything to restrict the man's actions given the charges were dropped or never filed.  The Church is not a law enforcement organization and shouldn't step in to act like one if the police aren't.  Not going to speculate to details about this case, but hopefully that will encourage you to push your own brain to consider the possibilities.

I do know of another case where several victims were afraid to say anything because the predator had said threatening and absolutely vicious comments and constantly commented how he concealed carried.  The victims were concerned that if they complained and the man was kicked out of the community (not church), he would react violently.  They were afraid for their own lives, the lives of their friends and families and anyone else who happened to be there if he went postal.  Walking around with bodyguards for even a week, let alone the rest of his life was not an option.  It was a very credible threat.  They felt they were in a damned if you don't, likely dead if you do situation.  In this case, the women learned of each other, decided to band together and move against him, which first achieved nothing, but with some creativity they upped the stake.  Hopefully he is actually a coward (he sounds like one to me due to how he reacted when confronted) and the show of force will make him back down permanently.

A student of my husband's came to tell him she was dropping out of college for a year or two as she had a stalker that was showing up at each of her classes, etc.  He had done nothing yet that the police could act on.  If she reported it however, likely he would have been immediately kicked off University grounds (my husband told her he would go with her to report and support her in any way possible).  She chose the option of dropping out and leaving the area instead because even if he had been managed to be restricted off the campus (it was unlikely they would have given her a security escort for the next three years until graduation, so if he was the patient type....and it's a big enough campus to be unobserved in if one tries imo), he knew where she lived and campus police could do nothing about that.

Victims have to weigh those kinds of choices all the time; punishment, even if limited, of the predator is a good thing, might even get them to back down.  Otoh, we hear of plenty of cases where the opposite reaction took place and victims were injured, even killed when the predator felt threatened or even just resisted.

Perhaps this is a similar situation.

These situations are often very complicated, especially if violence is involved (and having significant forensic evidence of assault suggests that).  I think it is foolish to reduce it to a simplistic "just report it to authorities" as if there couldn't be any highly problematic consequences involved.

You do realize we're talking about covering up for a rapist, right? Maybe it is complicated, but it really ought to be very, very compelling as to why one would just shrug off that kind of knowledge. It's not a question of ignorance or doubt as to the person's guilt as described. It isn't due to lack of knowledge as to the correct person to report it to in order to see that some form of at least ecclesiastical judgment is made, and judgment that is intended to both protect other members of the church and supposedly help the sinner find their way back through repentance to whatever forgiveness is available from God and their victims. I don't think it's fair to just shrug this off since it's put forward as having bearing on this other conversation. But as of now it seems like it's really another example of members covering for members/the Church rather than having some higher ethical sense of right and wrong. See how your response actually undermines some of the meta-argument of this thread by your automatically being willing to add to the cover of what is to you and me a hypothetical rapist? I would suggest being more wary of setting basic ethical values aside to defend a person for their being a member rather than for their behaving in a way that deserves your support and trust. But that's just me I guess. Anyway, Smac could very easily tie up this loose end in his anecdotal account by explaining. I'd be interested in seeing that explanation.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The “frisky” backrub was confessed in both the police interview and the meeting with Denson.  (The police interview clarified that the “frisky” part was feeling the sister missionaries buttocks.)

Do you disagree that he confessed to inappropriate behavior with Denson in both her interview and to the police?

Please separate as far as I am talking the police reports and the transcript.

People are making claims there are multiple sources describing him confessing depraved behaviour.  I am pointing out that there is on,y one independent source of confession, the police report.  All the depravity alleged in the transcripts requires either reading stuff into what he said---assuming he meant something when he may have understood it differently or even not really understood what was being said but acting elderly and agreeable because he was having trouble following what she was saying---or taking the information from the police report and putting it back into the transcript...even then it is problematic because he confesses to doing something depraved with Denson that she has stated did not occur with her.  So she is not a witness of that event and any info on that from her is hearsay.  So we don't know if he even remembers taking her down into the basement or if he has substituted the real victim of that incident with Denson.

IOW, all the basement description including her even down there depends on Denson's testimony, not on .Bishop's.  His police confession backs up the second victim's experience only (unless there are details on the recording that haven't been shared yet, is there a link to this recording or were only quotes or paraphrases provided?).  His transcript can be used to give greater context, but can't be used as an independent confirmation of either him assaulting Denson or the second victim in the basement, imo.

Before the police report was released and his confession to them about his asking her to bare her breasts, all depraved behaviour (outside the possibility of dinnertime with his wife which some might see as playful if she was the initiator while others as domineering if he had pushed her to do it), the only evidence of depraved behaviour was his saying "yes" and "I am sorry" to Denson's accusations while if asked to confirm details he would say "I don't remember" or disconnected comments.

I have not double checked the transcript today so if you want to provide a quote demonstrating my conclusion that the transcript is useless to demonstrate depraved behavior from Bishop's own words is false...no problem, but at this time I believe only the police report demonstrates that imo...which is more than enough imo in regards to Bishop's behaviour.

[Honorentheos]

A police interview and report is fairly compelling evidence. 

Keeping in mind that in the victim's account he forceably removed her clothing to get to her breasts while his account to the police is that he asked her to expose her breasts for him and she did so. That's his account making a case for consensual activity and her account making a case for rape. But his account is that of a person in authority asking a subordinate to remove their clothing which wouldn't stand up as consensual anyway. The accounts are only materially different in that Bishop does not admit to committing rape.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

See how your response actually undermines some of the meta-argument of this thread by your automatically being willing to add to the cover of what is to you and me a hypothetical rapist? I would suggest being more wary of setting basic ethical values aside to defend a person for their being a member rather than for their behaving in a way that deserves your support and trust.

Huh?

I pointed out that sometimes victims make decision not to pursue justice or restrictions to be placed on predators out of real and valid fear, sometimes for their lives.  That therefore at times refusal to confront predators is not crazy...especially if there are inadequate limits of protection...and let's be realistic, the only thing that can be sure to prevent an attack is jail time...but then there is the possibility of what happens after he gets out.

Not sure how that is providing "cover".

Please tell me how telling church leaders is going to prevent a rapist from raping again if police have decided not to press charges.  At best it removes church meetings from being part of his hunting routine and prevents church members from being alone with him through a church meeting or calling...doesn't stop him from showing up at anyone's house or stalking them though.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iirc, He said he didn't remember anything except talking to her privately and taking her to the basement in the tape, but no specific details were given and he specifically said he didn't remember raping her.  He was quite insistent on that in his tone imo even while he had been congenially pretty much saying "yes" to everything else she said.

Unless you can point out that the inappropriate things that were specified by him were actually depraved, just him saying he did inappropriate things and calling himself a sex addict but not actually explaining his behaviors...I don't see how this can be labeled "confessed depravity".

The back room was known as an additional office by the rest of the MTC.  He also described in very great detail and articulate words (quite different to much of his other speech when responding to her) how traumatized sisters sought him out for help (rather than him calling them out) and being required to counsel them even though he felt out of his depth and begged church leaders to get a professional counselor.  It can all be painted as him trying his best as an amateur counselor and crossing some lines a professional would know to avoid.  The use of the downstairs basement office can be passed off as him believing the sisters would appreciate greater privacy or to feel like he really cared about them as individuals, was treating them as more than a duty by sharing other parts of his life than just the four walls of his public office (Denson described it in that fashion iirc).

A decent lawyer can credibly explain the transcript as him confessing to an addiction of fantasizing or porn and a struggle in counseling where he shared personal struggles in order to help the sisters feel like they were not alone, that he understood emotional hardships, etc.

When the only inappropriate things with women that are confessed to are two women being inappropriate to him where no response from him is described, a private interaction between him and his wife, and a backrub asked for by a sister missionary...do you really see those as inherently depraved?

I think given overall knowledge...the second victim reporting sexual assault and the police interview, the information provided in the transcript can assume a different perspective, but if taken on its own it does nothing to support depraved sexual behaviours.  At most it shows a weird self aggrandizing  world view that everything revolves around him (his second wife had a troubled first marriage which led to extremes pain and hangups for her, which led to their divorce, which led to him being in a place and time where his life was saved by a world's expert; he gets possessed by the demons who had been troubling a sister missionary when he tries to save her) that could explain why he eagerly embraces the sex addict label because he loves to dramatize everything about himself as well as in his view he is never at fault for trouble in his personal relationships (the divorce happened because of his second wife's issues, his lack of a normal relationship with his first wife as well as being insulted as short when he was a kid...this is why he had any sexual hangups, the three women there was anything physical with made either all the moves or the first one).

Yes there are ways to explain away what he said in his meeting with Denson.  But taking a sister missionary alone into a locked room was inappropriate.  (I don’t buy the logic that it gave them more privacy than his office, that doesn’t make sense and, iirc, wasn’t a reason he ever gave.  The frisky backrub was inappropriate.  Him talking about his sex life to a sister missionary was appropriate and depraved.

When taken together with his police confession (the audio still being unlawfully kept from the public by BYU Police) and corroborating witnesses, it starts to paint a clearer picture.  Personally, I think he seems quite coherent in the Denson recording.  But I suppose an insanity plea is best route to take.  

I wonder what is so damaging in the police  interview that they are willing to break the law to keep it secret?

 

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please separate as far as I am talking the police reports and the transcript.

People are making claims there are multiple sources describing him confessing depraved behaviour.  I am pointing out that there is on,y one independent source of confession, the police report.  All the depravity alleged in the transcripts requires either reading stuff into what he said---assuming he meant something when he may have understood it differently or even not really understood what was being said but acting elderly and agreeable because he was having trouble following what she was saying---or taking the information from the police report and putting it back into the transcript...even then it is problematic because he confesses to doing something depraved with Denson that she has stated did not occur with her.  So she is not a witness of that event and any info on that from her is hearsay.  So we don't know if he even remembers taking her down into the basement or if he has substituted the real victim of that incident with Denson.

IOW, all the basement description including her even down there depends on Denson's testimony, not on .Bishop's.  His police confession backs up the second victim's experience only (unless there are details on the recording that haven't been shared yet, is there a link to this recording or were only quotes or paraphrases provided?).  His transcript can be used to give greater context, but can't be used as an independent confirmation of either him assaulting Denson or the second victim in the basement, imo.

Before the police report was released and his confession to them about his asking her to bare her breasts, all depraved behaviour (outside the possibility of dinnertime with his wife which some might see as playful if she was the initiator while others as domineering if he had pushed her to do it), the only evidence of depraved behaviour was his saying "yes" and "I am sorry" to Denson's accusations while if asked to confirm details he would say "I don't remember" or disconnected comments.

I have not double checked the transcript today so if you want to provide a quote demonstrating my conclusion that the transcript is useless to demonstrate depraved behavior from Bishop's own words is false...no problem, but at this time I believe only the police report demonstrates that imo...which is more than enough imo in regards to Bishop's behaviour.

I disagree that it requires “reading into” the Denson recording to find Bishop’s confessions of depravity.  Rather, I think to NOT see him confessing depravity you have to assume that he is not of sound mind.  And I don’t see any reason to make that assumption. 

That said, I don’t see it being worth either of our time to delve back into that lengthy transcript/recording.  I respect your opinion on what you read/heard.  I just differ in my interpretation. 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

A police interview and report is fairly compelling evidence. 

Keeping in mind that in the victim's account he forceably removed her clothing to get to her breasts while his account to the police is that he asked her to expose her breasts for him and she did so. That's his account making a case for consensual activity and her account making a case for rape. But his account is that of a person in authority asking a subordinate to remove their clothing which wouldn't stand up as consensual anyway. The accounts are only materially different in that Bishop does not admit to committing rape.

This wasn't McKenna, it was the other missionary. Bishop gets the two confused, if you listen to the interview with McKenna and Bishop, he mentions something to her about getting breast implants and she was like, no that wasn't me! She wore a padded bra, because she mentioned that he grabbed her by the breasts during the rape incident in the storage room, but she had on a padded bra so it wasn't as painful. 

Over and over people mess this up, Bishop was speaking of another missionary not McKenna when he asked her to expose her breasts.

There, have I said 'breasts' enough for one night?!?

Edited May 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Huh?

I pointed out that sometimes victims make decision not to pursue justice or restrictions to be placed on predators out of real and valid fear, sometimes for their lives.  That therefore at times refusal to confront predators is not crazy...especially if there are inadequate limits of protection...and let's be realistic, the only thing that can be sure to prevent an attack is jail time...but then there is the possibility of what happens after he gets out.

Not sure how that is providing "cover".

Please tell me how telling church leaders is going to prevent a rapist from raping again if police have decided not to press charges.  At best it removes church meetings from being part of his hunting routine and prevents church members from being alone with him through a church meeting or calling...doesn't stop him from showing up at anyone's house or stalking them though.

In the case of Smac's anecdote, Smac has described it as a case where there is compelling evidence, the victim sought legal justice but was failed by the criminal justice system for reasons other than there being a good case with successful prosecution being possible, Smac knows the victim and their assailant, Smac knows the person is a member of the Church and apparently in good standing, and for all intents and purposes Smac as described this as a case where the assailant's Church leaders are ignorant of the person committing a violent act of such magnitude it is second only to murder (sexual infidelity being second to murder in general but forcing ones self on another sexually adding violence to some degree must make it even that much closer), all adds up to this thing we're talking about being something quite serious. Why wouldn't Smac feel compelled to defend his silence in face of such knowledge? Surely he's chosen to act in some way according to some form of moral code. The anecdote was worth sharing. Surely helping us understand what would compel him to silence is equally worthy.