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

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

And what was going on in the Church up to 2010?  It could have been nothing if Denson is lying about meeting with Elder Asay because then only Leavitt would have known and he sounds like he slept soundly whatever his decision was.  

Has Leavitt been honest about everything else (I haven't followed that part of this...)?

Here's consig's input on this and I tend to agree with him.  If Mckenna Denson lied about meeting with Asay, why not go ahead and lie regarding what she told Monson?  She could claim anything about it at this point, but appears to be relating it honestly:

Quote

One last note has to do with the Thomas Monson interview with McKenna Denson.

To the best of my knowledge, McKenna Denson does not allege the subject of Joseph Bishop was discussed during her approximately half-hour interview with Thomas S. Monson at the Church Office Building in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.

I still do not know why an apostle would meet with a sister missionary in his office about going back on her mission.

Some have suggested this was de reguere back in 1984. I honestly cannot say with authority whether that is true. It does seem odd to me, though.

And the fact McKenna makes no such allegation regarding any disclosures about Joseph Bishop either by herself or by Thomas Monson during this half-hour meeting makes me tend to find her more credible.

McKenna has a blank slate on which to write here. She could say she said anything to Thomas Monson. She could say he said anything back to her.

And yet she does not.

Again, this appears to be an honest person telling a true story. 

And I think the credibility she gains on the meeting with Thomas Monson transfers over to her meeting with Carlos Asay.

 

[provoman]

She has been consistent about meeting Asay, but has never publicly stated she met with monson; so I dont see a transfer of credibility.

Edited May 1, 2018 by provoman

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

She has been consistent about meeting Asay, but has never publicly stated she met with monson; so I dont see a transfer of credibility.

I believe that Denson's written statement to the BYU Police is where she states that she met with then Elder Monson.  And, IIRC, the Jordan (church hired attorney) letter confirms that Denson did meet with a general authority to be let back out on her mission, thus partially corroborating Denson's account.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, provoman said:

She has been consistent about meeting Asay, but has never publicly stated she met with monson; so I dont see a transfer of credibility.

Most likely because she's being honest here and only brought up those with whom who she had discussed what happened at the MTC (alleged rape).  

[Calm]

Leavitt as reported by KUTV:

Quote

 

(KUTV)- When you ask the former bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, Ron Leavitt, about the recent allegations against former MTC mission president, he says he remembers them vividly. 

“Oh heavens yes,” Leavitt said as he recalls what he was told in 1984.

Leavitt was a single ward president from 1979 to 1985 and said during his regular post-church meetings with parishioners, a woman told him that Joseph Bishop, a former president of the Missionary Training Center, had acted inappropriately with her. 

“According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography,” Leavitt explained.

When asked if he reported the incident to the police or the leadership of the LDS Church Leavitt said he did not. “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....

Leavitt says he has heard from officials with the LDS Church at least 3 times in the last week and a half, about the allegations.

 

video here:

http://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-mtc-president-of-sexual-assault-has-been-telling-her-story-for-3-decades

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

This appears to be the limit of what Leavitt reported or was reported of what he said, since I can find no extended version of his interview.

In my looking for additional vid for him, came across the blog on the scandal from Jeff Lindsay, a bit out of date, but since he is relatively well known in the Mormon apologist circles, I thought some might be interested in his out look including how we could better prepare our members.

I thought it was quite balanced.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/my-take-on-joey-l-bishop-scandal-and.html

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Has Leavitt been honest about everything else (I haven't followed that part of this...)?

What basis do you have for questioning his honesty?

I suppose you could come up with something along the lines of: "He's a Mormon, and so he wants to protect his Church by misrepresenting what Denson said to him.  Also, he failed to report a rape, so changing the allegation makes him look less bad."

But Ms. Denson has a strong financial incentive here, so her remarks could likewise be viewed with some suspicion?

At this point, I am persuaded that something very bad happened to Sis. Denson, and that Joseph Bishop did it.  I am not persuaded, however, that it was rape or attempted rape.  The evidence is just not there.

Quote

Here's consig's input on this and I tend to agree with him.  If Mckenna Denson lied about meeting with Asay, why not go ahead and lie regarding what she told Monson? 

I am on the fence as to whether she met with Elder Asay.  The Church has no record of such a meeting, Bishop Leavitt denies setting such a meeting up, and Denson generally has some pretty substantial credibility issues.  On the other hand, the purported inaction by Elder Asay (and the Church) could explain some of Denson's ongoing anger at this.  So the assertion that she told Elder Asay both A) could be true, and B) bolsters her narrative.

I think things are a bit different regarding her meeting with Elder Monson.  The meeting happened much closer in time to the alleged misconduct.  And the meeting was either closely preceded or followed by a meeting with a mental health therapist.  The notion that Elder Monson would receive a disclosure about the MTC president forcibly raping a sister missionary in a basement room at the MTC, and then shrug it off and send her back into the mission field, seems . . . far-fetched.  That's a major bombshell, so to present it for the first time in a federal lawsuit could easily come across as a tabloid-esque, let's-throw-it-out-there-for-the-shock-value contrivance.

So "why not go ahead and lie regarding what she told Monson?"  Because it could have weakened, rather than bolstered, her narrative.

Another possibility: She was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  It was something still profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, becomes an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  This could account some things, such a potential discrepancy between her accusations in the audio recording and the accusations she makes in the Complaint.  In the recording, Denson repeatedly and emphatically characterizes the misconduct as an attempted but unsuccessful rape:

• Page 27:  "Do you remember tearing my blouse, pulling up my skirt, ripping the back of my skirt and trying to rape me? But you didn't, because you didn't have a full erection."
• Page 30: "No one ever said hey what about this woman you tried to rape at the MTC?"
• Page 33: "And then you tried to rape me."
• Page 39: "So the truth is, even though you tried to rape me, and you couldn't get a full erection, you still..."
• Page 43: "
• Page 51: "[Why didn't you later confess and say]  I took a sister missionary down to my specia l room that has a bed and a TV and VCR and tapes and I tried to rape her, I couldn't get a full erection, so I couldn't completely penetrate, but you know. Did you admit that?"
• Pag 53: "I was in the MTC in January of 1984, and you tried to rape me."
• Page 41: "[Why didn't you later admit] 'I have molested or tried to rape some of my missionaries.'"
• Page 61: "Nobody ever came here and said, 'Hey, this missionary that was a missionary' ... Well, you were President of the MTC, up there on your pedestal, 'has accused you of trying to rape her.'"
• Page 63: "Trying to rape a missionary is not normal."

She does obliquely characterize the purported assault as rape rather than attempted rape on page 43 ("If I had not had the childhood I had, if I had not been a victim of sexual abuse as a child, what you did to me would have absolutely traumatized me. It did, but not in the way it should have, because I thought, well, this is just one more thing. One more t ime being raped. One more penis in my vagina.").  And in her federal Complaint, she specifically claims "rape."  See here:

Quote

31. Instead of allowing her to leave, BISHOP got in front of DENSON, physically blocking her from the door. He then pushed her back on the bed, grabbed her blouse and tore it open. BISHOP then pulled DENSON’S skirt up, tearing the seam in the back. He pulled her pantyhose and garments down. He exposed himself and briefly penetrated her with his semi-erect penis.
...
34. In early 1984, DENSON was raped and sexually assaulted, while a sister missionary, in a secluded room, unknown to the public at large, at Defendant COP’s Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah.
35. The rape and sexual assault was committed by Defendant JOSEPH L. BISHOP, who at all relevant times was in the course and scope of acting as a servant and/or agent of Defendant COP, making Defendant COP vicariously liable for the injuries caused by BISHOP under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
36. Upon information and belief, prior to the rape and sexual assault alleged above, Defendant COP knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of prior sexual improprieties against women committed by Defendant BISHOP. ...
...
38. Defendant COP aided the rape and sexual assault of DENSON by failing to take appropriate action to prevent further sexual assaults by BISHOP...
39. Upon information and belief, after learning that DENSON was raped and sexually assaulted at the MTC, Defendant COP, by and through its agents, ratified the wrongful conduct...
...
65. Plaintiff DENSON reasonably relied on the omissions and engaged in a trust relationship with the Defendants and their agents. DENSON did not know, prior to her abuse, that BISHOP was a sexual predator and a sex addict, nor that Defendant COP’s MTC was an untrustworthy and unsafe environment. These facts were concealed and hidden by Defendants.  As a result, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was raped and sexually assaulted. 
...
69. As a result of Defendants’ concealment or failure to disclose, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was sexually assaulted and raped. 

Ms. Denson states that "said she never told anyone about the attack until 1987 when she went to a bishop at the Mormon Church and he promised her he would investigate her complaint. But nothing ever happened, she said."  That bishop, apparently Ron Leavitt, states: "According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography."  If this is what happened, then this could still be extraordinarly demoralizing and upsetting and faith-shattering to Ms. Denson, who had already had a very traumatic childhood.  I won't pretent to be able to perceive the feelings of betrayal and stress and anger and emotiona/spiritual dissonance that she could have experienced because of this.

Leavitt's admission is both illuminating and damning.  He 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.").  That's damning because he should have, because doing so could have alerted the Church to misconduct much closer in time to it (assuming Bishop's guilt), because Ms. Denson could have received counseling and comfort, because Bro. Bishop could have been punished much sooner (again, assuming Bishop's guilt), and so on. 

However, Leavitt's statement is also illuminating because if it is true, then the allegation presented to him is that Joseph Bishop took Ms. Denson and another sister missionary to the basement room and "showed them pornography."  If that is what happened, is that a gross violation of trust?  Yes.  Immoral and evil and depraved?  Yes.  Worthy of excommunication?  Yes.

But is it a basis for a 30+-years-after-the-fact lawsuit seeking money damages from a deep-pocketed defendant?  Well, probably not.  As bad as this purported incident is from the Church's perspective (the MTC president showing sister missionaries porn in a basement room would be just plain evil), I don't think it is sufficient for a federal lawsuit.  So the allegation reported in the 1980s to the bishop ("According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography") may have become embellished and transmuted into a one-on-one incident (no other sister missionary around) which culminated in violent attempted rape.

This is all just theorizing, of course.  But then, theorizing is about all anyone can do.  The evidence is just not there.  There is no torn blouse.  No skirt with a ripped seam.  No witnesses seeing the MTC president going somewhere alone with a young sister missionary, or a witness seeing an extremely-upset-or-in-shock sister missionary walking or running down a hallway in the MTC, apparently with no companion present, and in a disheveled stated (torn blouse?  skirt with ripped seam?).  No missionary companion who could have provided a proximate-in-time recollection of finding Ms. Denson in their room, shocked and lying in bed and in a distressed state.

What would be signficant would be if Leavitt's statement was corroborated by the puported other sister missionary.  If she came forward and stated that the account as given by Leavitt (Ms. Denson telling him that Bishop took her and "another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography") is substantively true.  If that is the case, then Leavitt's recollection is bolstered.  If his recollection is bolstered, then what?

Quote

She could claim anything about it at this point, but appears to be relating it honestly:

Again, I am persuaded that something very bad happened to Sis. Denson, and that Joseph Bishop did it.  I am not persuaded, however, that it was rape or attempted rape.  The evidence is just not there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most likely because she's being honest here and only brought up those with whom who she had discussed what happened at the MTC (alleged rape).  

No, she went into significant detail on a mental health specialist to specifically say she didn't tell him in the transcript.  I can't remember what she said she told Leavitt.  She also states she didn't tell Asay about the rape in the police statement, but she mentioned him in the transcript.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At this point, I am persuaded that something very bad happened to Sis. Denson, and that Joseph Bishop did it.  I am not persuaded, however, that it was rape or attempted rape.  The evidence is just not there.

What evidence could there be this many years later?  It seems that even Mckenna Denson did not realize it was rape since Bishop was not able to complete the act and she fought him off and ran.  She now knows that it was a rape.

I am not going to attack the victim here and call her a liar about what took place.  There is simply too many corroborating factors, evidence and statements supporting her.

But, each of us has to weigh the evidence and decide what we believe so far, I get that too.  But why believe some of her story and then think she's lying about other details?

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, she went into significant detail on a mental health specialist to specifically say she didn't tell him in the transcript.

She's still being honest about it and continues to do so.  Pres. Monson has passed away and she could now give reasons to why she didn't relate what actually was said in their meeting before and how she feels she can come forward and relate everything (that she was afraid or trying to protect him or any other reason).  She's not doing that and she could without any way of proving they didn't discuss it.  This speaks to her honesty here, IMO.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

Denson stated in the press conference iirc, she didn't realize it was rape until the Police told her it was actual rape. So the inconsistencies in usage of "rape" between the tape which occurred prior to her full interview with the police and the lawsuit can be explained by that.

Not realizing they have been assaulted or rape is not uncommon among victims btw.  (Tell me if you want documentation)

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She's still being honest about it and continues to do so.  Pres. Monson has passed away and she could now give reasons to why she didn't relate what actually was said in their meeting before and how she feels she can come forward and relate everything (that she was afraid or trying to protect him or any other reason).  She's not doing that and she could without any way of proving they didn't discuss it.  

Well, you are assuming she is being honest and I agree there is little reason to think her dishonest.

I do find it strange there is no mention of the Monson interview on the tape on 12/2 even though there is (heated imo) discussion of the mental health specialist by her while there is the one line or so about meeting Monson in the 12/6 letter to the police.  I would like to hear her explanation for this.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It seems that even Mckenna Denson did not realize it was rape as he was not able to complete the act and she fight him off and ran.  She now knows that it was a rape.

Yes, the allegations can be viewed that way.  Certainly.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am not going to attack the victim here and call her a liar about what took place. 

I understand.  These are difficult things to address.  Calling her "the victim" necessarily presupposes her veracity and Joseph Bishop's guilt.

Questioning the accuracy of Bishop's claims is okay because he is the accused.  But questioning the accuracy of Denson's claims is not okay because she is "the victim."

It's hard to be dispassionate about this sort of thing.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is simply too many corroborating factors, evidence and statements supporting her.

Well, not really.  There is essentially no corroboration to substantiate the specific claim of rape or attempted rape.  All we have is the say-so of McKenna Denson.  Her say-so is based on her credibility.  Her credibility is . . . not good.

But that doesn't exculpate Joseph Bishop in my view.  While I am not persuaded that there was a rape or attempted rape (not at present, anyway), it seems fairly clear that he did something egregious and excommunicable.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, each of us has to weigh the evidence and decide what we believe so far, I get that too.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Denson stated in the press conference iirc, she didn't realize it was rape until the Police told her it was actual rape. So the inconsistencies in usage of "rape" between the tape which occurred prior to her full interview with the police and the lawsuit can be explained by that.

I quite agree.

But the inconsitency can also be attributed to legal strategizing through embellishment.  "Joseph Bishop showed me and another sister missionary pornography while I was in the MTC, and that utterly destroyed my entire life" does not have the same emotional - and legal - heft as "Joseph Bishop took me alone to a basement room in the MTC, blocked me from leaving, and violently raped me, and that utterly destroyed my life."

Ron Leavitt's statement corroborates the former, and goes some way in undercutting the latter.

This makes me wonder if Ron Leavitt will end up being a witness.  He may be able to testify about Denson's hearsay statement to him (see Utah R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A)).

If that happens, boy, will he be made to suffer.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, the allegations can be viewed that way. 

Because those are the facts regarding her charges and why she didn't realize it was actually a rape even if he didn't complete the act.   It's odd you believe he took her down into his private, locked room and attacked her but then call her a liar regarding the details of the attack.  What do you believe that Bishop did to her?

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really

Yes, really.  There is another victim who has stepped forward.  There is Bishop's troubled history and self admitted sexual addiction and inappropriate actions towards other women.  There's a witness who confirms there was a secret room behind locked doors in the basement of the MTC.  There is a statement from the teacher at the MTC who confirms that Bishop called Denson out of class.

I'm not sure what you call corroborating evidence and witnesses.....but I'd not say these are "not really" supportive of her account.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, you are assuming she is being honest and I agree there is little reason to think her dishonest.

I agree and tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.  She could have certainly lied and really brought a lot of hype, sensationalism and certainly more trouble for the church leaders if she had made allegations against Pres. Monson doing nothing after their meeting (and claiming he knew details about what occurred at the MTC with Bishop).  Instead, she's consistently remained honest about it.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

This appears to be the limit of what Leavitt reported or was reported of what he said, since I can find no extended version of his interview.

In my looking for additional vid for him, came across the blog on the scandal from Jeff Lindsay, a bit out of date, but since he is relatively well known in the Mormon apologist circles, I thought some might be interested in his out look including how we could better prepare our members.

I thought it was quite balanced.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2018/03/my-take-on-joey-l-bishop-scandal-and.html

I often read the comments left on blogs, and was sickened by the two at the bottom of the mormanity blog, where it has links to other abuses. I c/p some pertinant info on one of the links, that correlates to church leaders wanting to hide or that are blind to these things happening. Very sad and revealing. I know this is old news, but really should be new again so we don't repeat the past.

https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-fairfield-wives/Content?oid=2135525&showFullText=true

Atkinson never went to see Parkin-son again.
Instead, she called the Medical Board of California and left a message on the complaint line. Then she made an appointment with B. Gale Wilson, one of the most powerful men in Fairfield. At the time, Wilson was stake president, the highest-ranking local official in the Mormon Church. He was also Fairfield's city manager, and had been for years. A street in town bears his name.

It was the first time Atkinson had ever gone to the stake president with a problem. He ushered her into an office in the church building, very formal looking, like it could easily be in a downtown law firm. Atkinson took a seat in one of the two or three chairs set ready for those who come to confer on matters of the soul and the world. Wilson sat behind a desk. Atkinson shared her concerns about Dr. Parkinson.

Wilson is unavailable to discuss what happened inside the office. Atkinson says he told her he would take care of things with Parkinson, and asked her not to report it to the medical board.

"He [Wilson] said, 'It will never happen again. Don't file anything. It would embarrass the church,' " Atkinson recalls.

The instructions were easy to follow. The Medical Board's investigator didn't call back to follow up on the matter for weeks. When he did call, Atkinson simply said she didn't want to pursue a complaint.

It wasn't over.
As time passed in Fairfield, Atkinson's husband was called into various positions in the church. By now, he was one of the bishop's two counselors. Some time after Atkinson stopped seeing Parkinson, she was talking with a neighbor friend, who was pregnant and had a sore throat. She said the bishop had sent her to see Dr. Parkinson.

"Parkinson had her up in the stirrups," Atkinson said. "I didn't want anything to happen to her baby."

Atkinson went to see the bishop, who also lived in her neighborhood, and told him her story about Parkinson. He was stunned. That night, the doctor called her house. Parkinson, she remembers, told them in no uncertain terms that he would not stand for her running around town making these accusations, that he could sue them, and that their church membership might be in jeopardy if she did not stop talking about him. (In court, Parkinson has repeatedly denied ever threatening anyone's church membership.)

Shortly thereafter, the bishop was at their door.
"I could tell he was scared," Atkinson remembers. "He said he'd gotten a phone call, and that we were just going to drop it."

In 1981, John Parkinson replaced Wilson as stake president in Fairfield. Kem Atkinson's husband was relieved of his calling in the bishopric. The Atkinsons continued to be active in the church, but it wasn't quite the same. There were idle comments and joking references about Kem Atkinson being the town maverick. No one came to help them when they moved to another house in Fairfield. They slowly became invisible.

"My home teacher [a church officer who gives family guidance] told me that the Lord was unhappy with me because I was speaking evil against the Lord's anointed," Atkinson remembers.

A couple of years later, after another job transfer, the Atkinson family moved to Indiana. From there, they moved to Granite Bay. Kem Atkinson never was involved with John Parkinson again, until the afternoon, many years later, that an investigator for the Medical Board of California called to ask her a few questions about the doctor in Fairfield.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

In October 1993, most of the women who'd made official accusations against Parkinson, many of whom were Mormons, received a letter from someone named Clyde L. Moore. The letterhead on which the missive came listed its origins as an entity called "Executive Services," with post office box and phone numbers in Salt Lake City (home, of course, to the headquarters of the Mormon Church).

The letter stated that "a thorough investigation" had established Parkinson's innocence, and that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating the California Medical Board. Neither claim was true. The letter also implied that the church was preparing to take legal action of some kind against Parkinson's detractors:

"While we are not involved in any official capacity with this investigation, we have been retained by authorities in Salt Lake City to contact Church members who may have information regarding these solicitations and request that they make complete and truthful disclosure of their knowledge to any General Authorities who may contact them and also to their local Church leaders. Some persons may wish to secure private legal counsel regarding any personal liability they may have for statements made or actions taken in response to the alleged illegal solicitations noted above."

And a comment to the article: 

Wow... not a fun walk down memory lane in reading this. I grew up with all of these families. B Gale Wilson was my Stake President. I went to him as a young teen when my youngest sister was being molested by John Paylor, a member of our ward. My mother was told to forgive and not to warn other parents who's daughters were babysitting his children. He molested many and was never prosecuted. In fact years later the Paylors divorced. Karen Paylor married B. Gale Wilson, who left his wife for her. They had a baby, then a year later gave it up for adoption. Karen returned to her pedophile husband.

 

 

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because those are the facts regarding her charges and why she didn't realize it was actually a rape even if he didn't complete the act.   It's odd you believe he took her down into his private, locked room and attacked her but then call her a liar regarding the details of the attack.  What do you believe that Bishop did to her?

Yes, really.  There is another victim who has stepped forward.  There is Bishop's troubled history and self admitted sexual addiction and inappropriate actions towards other women.  There's a witness who confirms there was a secret room behind locked doors in the basement of the MTC.  There is a statement from the teacher at the MTC who confirms that Bishop called Denson out of class.

I'm not sure what you call corroborating evidence and witnesses.....but I'd not say there are "not really" supportive of her account.

There is corroborating statements of specific things. Just because a few things can be verified does not mean all things are true. However, I dont think one holds a vendetta for 33 years, issues at least two death threats (one of which was face to face with Bishop) and the whole story is a fraud. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by provoman

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What evidence could there be this many years later?  It seems that even Mckenna Denson did not realize it was rape since Bishop was not able to complete the act and she fought him off and ran.  She now knows that it was a rape.

I am not going to attack the victim here and call her a liar about what took place.  There is simply too many corroborating factors, evidence and statements supporting her.

But, each of us has to weigh the evidence and decide what we believe so far, I get that too.  But why believe some of her story and then think she's lying about other details?

You're right! I believe one of detectives of the Provo police told her that it was rape, so all these years later. Am I right about the police telling her, can't rely too much on my poor memory.

[Calm]

"Ron Leavitt's statement corroborates the former, and goes some way in undercutting the latter."

 

I don't see it as undercutting Denson's reports unless she specified she told him of the rape...can't remember exactly what she said.

The Lindsey blog had some discussion about the delay in reporting (she apparently did not report the fact of the rape itself until 2010 from her own account from 12/6, see http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70478-did-mckenna-denson-meet-with-thomas-s-monson-after-mtc/?do=findComment&comment=1209814677 for summary).

I thought some might find this of interest:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

There is corroborating statements of specific things. Just because a few things can be verified does not mean all things are true. However, I dont think one holds a vendetta for 33 years, issues at least two death threats (one of which was face to face with Bishop) and the whole story is a fraud. 

I'd imagine that if this were your daughter or mother or another family member who this happened to, you would be a bit more charitable and less judgmental.  As has been stated several times regarding another example given on this thread of sexual abuse, none of us should attack or blame the victim for how they've pursued (or not pursued) their abuser in an effort to heal.

There are just too many corroborating statements and evidence (plus another victim) to disregard her statements.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

 

Quote

It seems that even Mckenna Denson did not realize it was rape as he was not able to complete the act and she fight him off and ran.  She now knows that it was a rape.

Yes, the allegations can be viewed that way. 

 

Because those are the facts regarding her charges and why she didn't realize it was actually a rape even if he didn't complete the act.

No, those are the allegations regarding her charges.

In a legal dispute, allegations of fact don't really become findings of fact until the factfinder says so.

There has not been any factfinding here.

So the "facts" of what happened are very much in dispute.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 It's odd you believe he took her down into his private, locked room and attacked her

Perhaps.  But perhaps it wasn't "locked."  And perhaps he also took another sister missionary down there at the same time.  And perhaps he showen them pornography.  And perhaps that was the extent of the misconduct.  Extremely serious.  Egregious.  Evil.  Depraved.  Worthy of excommunication.

And perhaps he didn't take her down there at all.  Perhaps she heard about the room in the basement as a bit of gossip.  

There are all sorts of "perhaps" that we can pull out here.  That's the problem.  The evidence to competently determine what happened just isn't there.  Not yet.  Perhaps not ever.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

but then call her a liar regarding the details of the attack. 

I haven't called her a liar.  I am declining to accept her say-so as the unvarnished, 100% gospel truth, and am attempting to view the evidence dispassionately.  Can you perceive a difference between the two?

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What do you believe that Bishop did to her?

Well, that's still in flux.  I'm considering Ron Leavitt's statement for its probative value.  It's likely admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.  What are your thoughts about his statement?

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Quote

There is simply too many corroborating factors, evidence and statements supporting her.

Well, not really.

Yes, really. 

No, not really.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is another victim who has stepped forward. 

Who does not claim to be a percipient witness to what Denson is alleging.  And who alleges that Bishop, in a separate incident, asked her to show him her breasts.  Perverted?  Yes.  Evil and wrong and depraved?  Yes.  Inexcusable?  Yes.  Evidence of Bishop forcibly raping Denson?  No.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is Bishop's troubled history

Strange how perpetually vague this claim of "evidence" is.

"Troubled history?"  What does that mean?

Is a vague reference to "troubled history" evidence that Bishop forcibly raped Denson?  Not really, no.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

and self admitted sexual addiction

Again, vague.

Again, what does this mean?

Again, is admitting to having a "sexual addiction" evidence that Bishop forcibly raped Denson?  Not really, no.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

and inappropriate actions towards other women. 

Again, vague.

Again, what does this mean?

Again, are vague references to "inappropriate actions towards other women" evidence that Bishop forcibly raped Denson?  Not really, no.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There's a witness who confirms there was a secret room behind locked doors in the basement of the MTC. 

Which Denson could have heard about through the grapevine.

Or which Bishop may have taken her and another missionary to and shown them pornography.

Pretty ambiguous evidence, that.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is a statement from the teacher at the MTC who confirms that Bishop called Denson out of class.

CFR, if you please.  I can't find the reference, but I had thought that the MTC corroborated that she was pulled out of class, but the teacher could not recall why or by whom.

In any event, is Bishop calling Denson out of a class evidence that he forcibly raped her?  Not really.  It seems that Bishop admits to interviewing troubled sister missionaries, including Sis. Denson.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you call corroborating evidence and witnesses.....but I'd not say there are "not really" supportive of her account.

I would.  There is essentially no corroboration to substantiate the specific claim of rape or attempted rape.  All we have is the say-so of McKenna Denson.  Your list of corroborative evidence is hugely equivocal and vague, and open to all sorts of reasonable interpretations.

So we are left with . . . her say so.  And again, her say-so is based on her credibility.  Her credibility is . . . not good.

Ron Leavitt's statement may end up being important.  It's competent, probative, and admissible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd imagine that if this were your daughter or mother or another family member who this happened to, you would be a bit more charitable and less judgmental.  As has been stated several times regarding another example given on this thread of sexual abuse, none of us should attack or blame the victim for how they've pursued (or not pursued) their abuser in an effort to heal.

There are just too many corroborating statements and evidence (plus another victim) to disregard her statements.

I am not attacking. She made multiple death threats. She has pursued this issue for nearly 33 years. Those are facts.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Ron Leavitt's statement corroborates the former, and goes some way in undercutting the latter."

 

I don't see it as undercutting Denson's reports unless she specified she told him of the rape...can't remember exactly what she said.

The Lindsey blog had some discussion about the delay in reporting (she apparently did not report the fact of the rape itself until 2010 from her own account from 12/6, see http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70478-did-mckenna-denson-meet-with-thomas-s-monson-after-mtc/?do=findComment&comment=1209814677 for summary).

I thought some might find this of interest:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

 

http://www.good4utah.com/news/how-to-recognize-signs-of-child-abuse-grooming-cycle/1152002251

I watched this report last night and again today on the midday news. It's true about the victims of sexual abuse not realizing how it is abuse, surprisingly. Utah has three times the national average of sexual abuse. I wonder why...and this is so sickening to me.

When I was in 5th grade there was an old man in a neighborhood near our school that would hand out candy and even money to girls that visited him after school. He exposed his genitals to us once and fondled some of the neighbor girls. Back when it happened we never told anyone about it, we didn't understand how abusive it was. I often wonder how it affected me later in life. I wasn't fondled, in fact I got out of there when on one of our visits he started rubbing my leg, he'd invited us to sit on his couch in the living room. I told him I was a boy and left, I had a short haircut. But looking back I feel so awful that I didn't report it to my parents and possibly saved a lot of harm to other girls. This man was an LDS man, but may have suffered some dementia. Still no excuse. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't called her a liar.  

Then you believe she is being honest and telling the truth?

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, if you please.  I can't find the reference, but I had thought that the MTC corroborated that she was pulled out of class, but the teacher could not recall why or by whom.

I think it was Calm that posted details about that (yesterday?)....I'll see if I can find it.  But the teacher remembered her being pulled out of class and confirmed it was when Bishop was there. (I remember reading it because it was a question I'd had and she responded.)

As to the rest of your post, I can't do that with you today (or even follow your lengthy post really).  I just wish you'd concisely state something and not cut up people's posts so much  

But that's just a personal preference and observation!  Anyway, I don't have the energy to follow you breaking every post down into sentences and being so choppy and trying to respond to it.  Let's just say we disagree on some aspects of this case and leave it at that.  I've been pretty clear with my beliefs and feelings regarding it.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson