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

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either.

-Smac

Inappropriate and wrong are subjective.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

Right.  You ask for a reference for my opinion, and I gave it.

"The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either" is a statement of opinion.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, that’s a statement of fact.

"The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong" is a conclusory statement.  It's an opinion.  It's a value judgment.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which you can’t support because you don’t know the extent of the Church’s actions or inactions.

Nor do you, right?

So we're left with . . . innocent until proven guilty.

The evidence at hand indicates that Leavitt failed to report Denson's 1987 disclosure.  That was wrong.  Full stop.  I acknowledge that.  The Church has stated that it did not receive information about the alleged misconduct until 2010.  Denson apparently told KUTV that "starting in 1998, she made multiple reports of the incident to the LDS Church."  So we have seemingly conflicting claims here.  As between the two, I find the Church's statement more credible.  

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You could’ve said “I haven’t seen anything that suggests to me the Church has done anything inappropriate”.

Yes, that would be an opinion statement, too.

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Releasing records from confidential LDS Adoption records is inappropriate.

Do we know the LDS Church did this?

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As is releasing and using Church record information against a plaintiff. In my opinion.

What "Church record information" did the Church release that was, in your view, inappropriate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Inappropriate and wrong are subjective.

Agreed.  We're just sharing opinions here.  

[Jeanne]

Crap...the church and leaders are going to get away with it again.  If I was a mormon...I would be so ashamed.

Do not respond..just had to say and I am off.  But I can't believe ...in fact...just FLABBERGASTED that anyone would condone the actions of leaders...and Bishop himself.  Oh...great..he gets to resign...shame.

[smac97]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Crap...the church and leaders are going to get away with it again. 

Get away with what?

Just now, Jeanne said:

If I was a mormon...I would be so ashamed.

Of Bishop's apparent misconduct?  Yes, I am ashamed.  

Of Leavitt's failure to report Denson's allegations?  Yes, I feel badly about that.

Just now, Jeanne said:

Do not respond..just had to say and I am off.  But I can't believe ...in fact...just FLABBERGASTED that anyone would condone the actions of leaders...and Bishop himself.  Oh...great..he gets to resign...shame.

Nobody has condoned Bishop's misconduct, or Leavitt's omission.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

When did she reach out to the church again?  I thought it was just twice, once in 1987 and once in 2010.  Am I getting the timeline wrong?

From this week's Deseret News article:

"The lawsuit claims Denson made 10 reports about Bishop to various LDS leaders over the years without learning if any action had been taken against him."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From this week's Deseret News article:

"The lawsuit claims Denson made 10 reports about Bishop to various LDS leaders over the years without learning if any action had been taken against him."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

 

Are they listed in the lawsuit because news reports only 4, the ones Smac itemized earlier?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are they listed in the lawsuit because news reports only 4, the ones Smac itemized earlier?

No.

[Danzo]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From this week's Deseret News article:

"The lawsuit claims Denson made 10 reports about Bishop to various LDS leaders over the years without learning if any action had been taken against him."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

 

You keep making the church's case.

Bringing a case 30 years after the events in question makes it very unfair.

all of those reports goes to show that she knew what happened to her, and did nothing (legally) for 30 years.  She was an adult. She wasn't a minor when the alleged events occurred.

That is too much time that has passed. The witnesses are dead or very aged.

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

From this week's Deseret News article:

"The lawsuit claims Denson made 10 reports about Bishop to various LDS leaders over the years without learning if any action had been taken against him."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

 

It would be interesting to know what those 10 reports were or when they occurred.  As far as I am aware, she has only claimed 3 publicly.  

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You keep making the church's case.

Bringing a case 30 years after the events in question makes it very unfair.

all of those reports goes to show that she knew what happened to her, and did nothing (legally) for 30 years.  She was an adult. She wasn't a minor when the alleged events occurred.

That is too much time that has passed. The witnesses are dead or very aged.

 

 

Yep... I expect that the dismissal will be granted.  Not sure how a judge doesn't dismiss it.  But I'm not an attorney... other articles (aside from the DN) reference Denson's attorney explaining that there are sometimes special cases but I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate those.

But the 30 years doesn't, for me, justify how the Church handled this incident and Denson.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting to know what those 10 reports were or when they occurred.  As far as I am aware, she has only claimed 3 publicly.  

3 or 10... either way it doesn't justify the Church's behavior, IMO.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Yep... I expect that the dismissal will be granted.  Not sure how a judge doesn't dismiss it.  But I'm not an attorney... other articles (aside from the DN) reference Denson's attorney explaining that there are sometimes special cases but I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate those.

But the 30 years doesn't, for me, justify how the Church handled this incident and Denson.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

As far as I know, with the information available, they handle the situation the same anyone else would have.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

3 or 10... either way it doesn't justify the Church's behavior, IMO.

The disclosure to Leavitt should have been forwarded to the Church.  It wasn't.  No getting around that.

The second disclosure arose in relation to her threat to murder Bishop in 2010.  The Church investigated the allegations at that point, but could not impose discipline.

The third disclosure was to a stake president in Colorado two years ago.  We don't know much about this one, but by then A) decades had passed, B) the statute of limitations had passed, C) the police had already been notified, and D) the Church still (probably) lacked evidence sufficient to discipline Bishop (since he has denied the allegations).

I get that you are faulting the Church for A) the leak of a memo that was prepared for litigation purposes and leaked by unknown persons (almost certainly not the Church), and B) using the adverb "briefly" when describing her missionary service (by the way, do we know how long she actually served?).  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You keep making the church's case.

Bringing a case 30 years after the events in question makes it very unfair.

all of those reports goes to show that she knew what happened to her, and did nothing (legally) for 30 years.  She was an adult. She wasn't a minor when the alleged events occurred.

That is too much time that has passed. The witnesses are dead or very aged.

 

 

And if her reason was simply to find out if discipline was undertaken as I believe she stated her requests, then whether or not it was done seems somewhat irrelevant, imo.  Since a regular member doesn't dictate what discipline is decided, while she may want to argue she had a right to know (and I think in cases of abuse, this may be a valid argument), this is not a legal requirement as far as I know.

Not removing him from leadership positions and not publishing his books if they knew of her experience is a legitimate complaint imo due to safety concerns, but I don't see how that would impact her personally if she was not then under his authority.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting to know what those 10 reports were or when they occurred.  As far as I am aware, she has only claimed 3 publicly.  

3 to church leaders, yes (Leavitt, SL when she issued the gun threat, and her SP in 2016).

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... I expect that the dismissal will be granted.  Not sure how a judge doesn't dismiss it. 

I have been commenting on the poor quality of Denson's legal case for some time now.  The motions to dismiss, I think, reflect that.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But I'm not an attorney... other articles (aside from the DN) reference Denson's attorney explaining that there are sometimes special cases but I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate those.

I suspect he's thinking of something like "equitable tolling," which is legal parlance for "the statute of limitations should be extended because I didn't really discovery the wrongful conduct against me until very recently."  I don't think it'll work.  She states that she reported the misconduct to her bishop in 1987, so it's hard for her to say she reported the misconduct then, but didn't perceive it as such at the time.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But the 30 years doesn't, for me, justify how the Church handled this incident and Denson.

As to Leavitt, I agree.

As to the local leaders in 2010 in Pleasant Grove, UT and the stake president in Pueblo, CO in 2016, I disagree.

As to the Church's lawyer, I also disagree.  He did his job, and did it well.  

As to whomever used the adverb "briefly" in the Church's press release to describe her missionary service, I'm ambivalent.  We don't know how long she served, I think.  And even if it was a lapse in judgment, it was a pretty trivial one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 (by the way, do we know how long she actually served?).  

After the meetings with the therapist and Elder Monson, she was sent out to Wisconsin (she was originally going to a foreign Spanish speaking mission as she was in Washington waiting for a visa).

I don't remember seeing anything that suggests her mission was cut short at that point.

Her own comment from draft statement:

"I went to Wisconsin to complete my mission."

FYI, to the seven unknown out of ten times, she only said this in her draft while detailing the times she spoke of in the transcript:

"I have, over the years tried to find out from my bishops and stake presidents the outcome of the investigation. Was it taken seriously? Was there a church counsel held? Was he excommunicated or did he deny the incidents?"

(From her 12/6 draft statement)

If she knows the exact number...or came up with one, seems like she could provide those details for the police.  Not sure why she didn't when she reported the 2016 and provided very detailed details in some she did provide, but she could of felt she needed those details to support it was an actual memory and also didn't want to clutter up the statement with repetitive events that had nothing to do with a police investigation (though she include many details that don't, imo, so it feels inconsistent to me).

Edited May 17, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

3 or 10... either way it doesn't justify the Church's behavior, IMO.

I know that's your opinion and I respect that.  I'm just looking for evidence to support it as I form my own opinion, and i'm not seeing it yet.  I appreciate you discussing it with me though. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

As far as I know, with the information available, they handle the situation the same anyone else would have.

Probably, yes, they have handled it the same anyone else would have.  But, last I checked the Church of Jesus Christ isn't just "anyone else".

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The disclosure to Leavitt should have been forwarded to the Church.  It wasn't.  No getting around that.

The second disclosure arose in relation to her threat to murder Bishop in 2010.  The Church investigated the allegations at that point, but could not impose discipline.

The third disclosure was to a stake president in Colorado two years ago.  We don't know much about this one, but by then A) decades had passed, B) the statute of limitations had passed, C) the police had already been notified, and D) the Church still (probably) lacked evidence sufficient to discipline Bishop (since he has denied the allegations).

I get that you are faulting the Church for A) the leak of a memo that was prepared for litigation purposes and leaked by unknown persons (almost certainly not the Church), and B) using the adverb "briefly" when describing her missionary service (by the way, do we know how long she actually served?).  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not faulting them for the leak of the memo.

[stemelbow]

On 5/17/2018 at 11:53 AM, smac97 said:

"The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong" is a conclusory statement.  It's an opinion.  It's a value judgment.

Nor do you, right?

So we're left with . . . innocent until proven guilty.

The evidence at hand indicates that Leavitt failed to report Denson's 1987 disclosure.  That was wrong.

It seems the church did somethings wrong in your view but you keep saying the church didn’t do anything  inappropriate or wrong.  Granted I acknowledge you compared the bishop to a Walmart cashier in an attempt to seemingly clear the church of anything wrong, but as I pointed out I find that absurd.  Bishops are, as you know, the very ones members ought to report church leader abuse to.  Mand leavitts  story doesn’t make sense.  

I think Denson and company iare banking on the statute being tolled.  Since she told leaders and they told her they would look into the matter and apparently did not without informing her, Denson and co are hoping the law will consider that she did not take it further assuming her authority figures would do what they said they would do.    Seems like a near impossible task to me for them to show all of this.  But I’d bet this is the type of thing they are hoping for.  

The 2016 incident with the leader on Colorado might be brought back into play I suppose.  If they can somehow show she did meet with asay and that the leader in Colorado did not do anything after having it reported or did inform higher authority and then nothing happened.  Even that might not get ten very far.  But I’m no lawyer

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems the church did somethings wrong in your view but you keep saying the church didn’t do anything  inappropriate or wrong.  Granted I acknowledge you compared the bishop to a Walmart cashier in an attempt to seemingly clear the church of anything wrong, but as I pointed out I find that absurd.  Bishops are, as you know, the very ones members ought to report church leader abuse to.  Mand leavitts  story doesn’t make sense.  

I think Denson and company iare banking on the statute being tolled.  Since she told leaders and they told her they would look into the matter and apparently did not without informing her, Denson and co are hoping the law will consider that she did not take it further assuming her authority figures would do what they said they would do.    Seems like a near impossible task to me for them to show all of this.  But I’d bet this is the type of thing they are hoping for.  

The 2016 incident with the leader on Colorado might be brought back into play I suppose.  If they can somehow show she did meet with asay and that the leader in Colorado did not do anything after having it reported or did inform higher authority and then nothing happened.  Even that might not get ten very far.  But I’m no lawyer

If her claims were different the limitation might be tolled. Her suit is very specific though. The fraud claimed is based on Churvh conduct in 1984 or early.  

The essence of the fraud is the character of JBishop. For sake of presentation lets say her claim of sex assualt to include raoe is true.

Do you think after the rape she thought JBishop was a safe person to be around or a moral leader, she admits to avoiding him during the remainder of her time at the MTC.

Edited May 18, 2018 by provoman

[provoman]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It seems the church did somethings wrong in your view but you keep saying the church didn’t do anything  inappropriate or wrong.  Granted I acknowledge you compared the bishop to a Walmart cashier in an attempt to seemingly clear the church of anything wrong, but as I pointed out I find that absurd.  Bishops are, as you know, the very ones members ought to report church leader abuse to.  Mand leavitts  story doesn’t make sense.  

I think Denson and company iare banking on the statute being tolled.  Since she told leaders and they told her they would look into the matter and apparently did not without informing her, Denson and co are hoping the law will consider that she did not take it further assuming her authority figures would do what they said they would do.    Seems like a near impossible task to me for them to show all of this.  But I’d bet this is the type of thing they are hoping for.  

The 2016 incident with the leader on Colorado might be brought back into play I suppose.  If they can somehow show she did meet with asay and that the leader in Colorado did not do anything after having it reported or did inform higher authority and then nothing happened.  Even that might not get ten very far.  But I’m no lawyer

Her claim for fraudulent concealment might be able to survive the motion to dismiss. The concealment claim is based on presuming that the Church knew JB was a predator but put him in the position of MTC President anyway. Denson claim is that had she known about JB past, she would not have entered the MTC.

How the statute of limitation might apply to this claim?

She did not learn of the possibility that the Church knew of JB past actions and character until December 2017. That is she did not learn until 12/2017 that Church potentially concealed information about JB.  So if any claim might survive, I believe it would be this one.

I also suspect that if any claim survives, a settlement will quickly occur.

Edited May 19, 2018 by provoman

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Her claim for fraudulent concealment might be able to survive the motion to dismiss. The concealment claim is based on presuming that the Church knew JB was a predator but put him in the position of MTC President anyway. Denson claim is that had she known about JB past, she would not have entered the MTC.

How the statute of limitation might apply to this claim?

She did not learn of the possibility that the Church knew of JB past actions and character until December 2017. That is she did not learn until 12/2017 that Church potentially concealed information about JB.  So if any claim might survive, I believe it would be this one.

I also suspect that if any claim survives, a settlement will quickly occur.

Interesting.  Thanks provoman