Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The section on her friendship with the YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, is very interesting.  He claims now that he didn’t trust her but he gave her a temple recommend, attended her sealing, let his daughter live with her in Taiwan, and let Denson stay at his house repeatedly.  

Could you point to where he "claims now that he didn't trust her?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The interviewer ends the first portion of the interview by saying that "In honor of Joseph Bishop, we're going to close out part one of the very first ever interview on Radio Free Mormon - After Dark with Ray Charles singing his smash hit, '[Everybody's Doin'] the Mess Around.'"  He then plays the song.

Here are the lyrics to that song:

So "Radio Free Mormon" is interviewing a woman who was purportedly sexually assaulted by Joseph Bishop, and the interviewer closes the first part of the interview by introducing a song "in honor of Joseph Bishop" that includes lyrics like "She knows how to shake that thing / Mess around / I declare, she can mess around."

That seems . . . well, unseemly.  Crass.  Vulgar.  Making light of sexual assault.

So far, "Radio Free Mormon" does not impress.

-Smac

Smac, you sound just like my husband, just like him! He looks at things either in a movie or song and thinks it's always about sex. Maybe this is the first time for you. I get so frustrated with it. How do you know it's not just talking about dancing? Oh, it looks like it was!

 

[sunstoned]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’ve listened to quite a few of RFM’s podcasts.  I agree that he has his biases... it is clearly not an attempt by him to present both sides of an issue.  But I think the name and “behind enemy lines” intro are just his quirky sense of humor and not an implication that the church is equivalent to the Nazi regime.  If the latter were the case, he probably would have resigned his membership, which he has apparently not done.  Perhaps he will stop by here to comment on your assessment of his intro. 

What I do enjoy about RFM is the detailed and methodical way that he researches and presents topics.  His attention to detail is something that many other amateur podcasters lack. 

That attention to detail shows through in this Denson interview.  When she inadvertently skips over important details, he follows up with questions.  I’ve listened to both parts and it was clear that he also wanted to make sure she had the opportunity to respond to many of the questions that have been raised about her account.  And, I can think of at least one time where he disagreed with Denson and took the side of the church. 

On a more general note:  I hope that the BYU PD will drop any appeals and release all of the reports and recordings.  If not, our Church leaders ought to step in and instruct them to do so.  Keeping this hidden is shameful for a church that ought to be openly addressing the issue rather than seeking to protect certain men. 

Outside of the name, I also really enjoy the RFM podcasts. As you mentioned, they well planned and detailed. The narration also flows well.

[Tacenda]

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you point to where he "claims now that he didn't trust her?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Ron Leavitt told the reporter that he felt she didn't have enough credence to believe her story. Definition below...

Cre·dence

ˈkrēdəns/

noun

1.

belief in or acceptance of something as true.

"psychoanalysis finds little credence among laymen"

synonyms:belief, faith, trust, confidence, reliance

"the government placed little credence in the scheme"

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The section on her friendship with the YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, is very interesting.  He claims now that he didn’t trust her...

Do you mean in general or in the sole instance of her reporting the abuse?

[smac97]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

The section on her friendship with the YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, is very interesting.  

I agree.  The interviewer specifically claims that Leavitt has publicly described Ms. Denson as "neurotic" (he says that this was "his [Leavitt's] word").  That's new to me.  I haven't heard that, and I would like to see some substantiation of it.

Instead, we have this report about an interview of Leavitt by KUTV:

Quote

On Thursday night Ron Leavitt, a former single’s ward president, says one of the women came to him the mid '80s and said Bishop abused her, taking her and another woman to a small basement room at the MTC and showed them pornography.

And here is an interview of Leavitt that was broadcast on KUTV (here is a YouTube video that shows the KUTV broadcast, but also heavily editorializes over it).  The interview goes like this:

Quote

 

Leavitt: According to her, he took [bleeped out] and, I think, maybe one other sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography."

Reporter: What was your reaction?

Leavitt: Doubt.  

Reporter: You doubted her?

Leavitt: Mm-hmm.  Primarily because I'd noticed that she tended to embellish experiences.

 

And more:

Quote

Reporter (Voiceover): Despite what the woman told him, Leavitt did not tell anyone about her story.

Reporter (to Leavitt): Did you pass along this information to the Church [Leavitt shakes head] or the police or anything like that?  And how come, why not?

Leavitt: Primarily because 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.  

And this: 

Quote

Reporter: He does suggest that perhaps he may have been inappropriate with sister missionaries.

Leavitt: Hmm.  That's interesting. 

Reporter: Given that knowledge, does that make you think 'Well, maybe I should've said something?'"

Leavitt: Had I had that information then, yes, I would have.

I think the interviewer's bias is tainting the discussion here.  He is (mis)characterizing what Leavitt said.  I don't think he ever described Denson as "neurotic" (though I am open to correction if anyone has information about this point).  

Moreover, it seems odd that the interviewer would take this tack.  He says (speaking of Leavitt): "His impression was that you [McKenna Denson] were 'neurotic,' I believe was his word, that he thought this was an incredible tale, that it was impossible for him to believe, and that he therefore did not report it to anyone."  This narrative undermines McKenna Denson's claim that Leavitt referred her to Elder Asay.  Why would he refer an "incredible tale" from a "neurotic" person that he himself found "impossible to believe?" 

The interviewer then starts to spin a conspiracy theory, that unknown "church leaders'" calls to Leavitt demonstrates a conspiracy.  Says the interviewer: "To my mind, it starts being suggestive of the fact that maybe the purpose of the phone calls is not just to find out what Ron Leavitt remembers, but maybe to help Ron Leavitt remember things in a way that is advantageous to the Church.  In other words, not just getting information from him, but giving him information as to what he should say to the reporters."  Ms. Denson then adds "I agree with that."

This is an interview that is supposed to be "factual...precise and very truthful?"

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you point to where he "claims now that he didn't trust her?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean in general or in the sole instance of her reporting the abuse?

The reporting of the abuse. 

Denson claimed that she reported it to Bishop  Leavitt and that Leavitt arranged for the Elder Asay interview. 

Leavitt has now stated that he didn’t believe Denson’s account and so he did nothing. 

It is odd that he would sign a temple recommend for and attend the sealing of a woman who he believes made false allegations of sexual abuse about her MTC President.  Not impossible, just odd. 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, you sound just like my husband, just like him! He looks at things either in a movie or song and thinks it's always about sex. Maybe this is the first time for you. I get so frustrated with it. How do you know it's not just talking about dancing? Oh, it looks like it was!

What does dancing having to do with Joseph Bishop?  What's the point in dedicating a song "in honor of Joseph Bishop" if that song is about dancing?

"Messing around" is an obvious euphemism for sexual behavior.  Are you suggesting otherwise?

I don't know your husband.  As you have previously hoped, I am apparently not worthy to live in your neck of the woods.  And no, I don't go looking for sexual innuendo.  But in this case, the innuendo was about as subtle as a Donald Trump tweet.

-Smac

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

 

The reporting of the abuse. 

Denson claimed that she reported it to Bishop  Leavitt and that Leavitt arranged for the Elder Asay interview. 

Leavitt has now stated that he didn’t believe Denson’s account and so he did nothing. 

It is odd that he would sign a temple recommend for and attend the sealing of a woman who he believes made false allegations of sexual abuse about her MTC President.  Not impossible, just odd. 

If it happened one time and she did not continue to make the claim, he might have assume it was a mistake she no longer was making. He called it “embellishing” in the interview, perhaps he didn’t see the need of it was repeated to bring it up again.  He might have thought it an emotional stability issue or attention getting behavior as it appears he thinks she embellished other things in her life,  not a worthiness one, and one that looked to be resolved in his view by future behavior.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Denson claimed that she reported it to Bishop  Leavitt and that Leavitt arranged for the Elder Asay interview. 

Yes, and Leavitt denies this.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Leavitt has now stated that he didn’t believe Denson’s account and so he did nothing. 

Correct.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is odd that he would sign a temple recommend for and attend the sealing of a woman who he believes made false allegations of sexual abuse about her MTC President.  Not impossible, just odd. 

I'm not seeing that as odd.  He apparently had a fairly close relationship with her.  He apparently knew quite a bit about her history, likely including her fabricated "attempted rape" claim when she was a missionary.   And he said she "tended to embellish experiences."  So when she presented the claim about being sexually assaulted by the MTC president, I think I can understand (but not condone or excuse) his skepticism and failure to report the matter to the police or to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What does dancing having to do with Joseph Bishop?  What's the point in dedicating a song "in honor of Joseph Bishop" if that song is about dancing?

"Messing around" is an obvious euphemism for sexual behavior.  Are you suggesting otherwise?

I don't know your husband.  As you have previously hoped, I am apparently not worthy to live in your neck of the woods.  And no, I don't go looking for sexual innuendo.  But in this case, the innuendo was about as subtle as a Donald Trump tweet.

-Smac

Smac, I love my husband, and I have nothing against you. And maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd rather believe the song is about dancing. ETA: Just thinking about it, I do wonder why he chose that song. I'll ask him on the Mormon Discussions Podcast comment section and see what happens.  

I sure loved the song he played after the 2nd podcast. Barry Manilow's One Voice. 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

Listening to it now. Fascinating stuff, and she doesn't come across as some kind of loon. It's remarkable how composed she is. I still have a really hard time with this, knowing she entered the MTC the same day I did. 

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it happened one time and she did not continue to make the claim, he might have assume it was a mistake she no longer was making. He called it “embellishing” in the interview, perhaps he didn’t see the need of it was repeated to bring it up again.  He might have thought it an emotional stability issue or attention getting behavior as it appears he thinks she embellished other things in her life,  not a worthiness one, and one that looked to be resolved in his view by future behavior.

And it's interesting that he received three calls from the church right before the interview, I'd love to know what was said. 

Glad the reasoning for her crying rape on her mission was explained and IMO, cleared up. The lawyers for the church sure messed up on that one. They really missed the boat on understanding what a rape survivor goes through. Of course she couldn't tell her companions who raped her.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

Ms. Denson's description of the purported meeting with Carlos Asay is interesting.  She prefaces it by saying that she told her fiancé about Bishop's sexual assault, and that he told her to forget about it and move on with her life, but that she refused and reported it to her bishop (Leavitt) anyway.  So she's clearly claiming that her fiancé was aware of her claims against Bishop in 1987.  

She also says her fiancé drove her to the appointment, which was at a church building somewhere in Orem about a week after she disclosed to Ron Leavitt, that her fiancé went in with her, shook Elder Asay's hand, and then waited in the hallway during her interview with Elder Asay.

As I understand it, the fiancé then became Ms. Denson's husband, then ex-husband, and has expressed substantial skepticism about her allegations of rape.  See here:

Quote

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt."

This is the second time Ms. Denson has pointed to someone as a purportedly corroborating witness, only to have that witness not agree with her characterizations.  The other supposed corroborating witness was . . . Ron Leavitt.  She told the Salt Lake Tribune that

Quote

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

And yet Leavitt is on record as saying that

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

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

And now she's presenting her fiancé as another corroborating witness, but he has said that her allegations are "an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt," and that Ms. Denson has made "at least two additional" (false) allegations of sexual assault (about one of which Denson has admitted was a fabrication).

"Radio Free Mormon" doesn't raise any of these issues.  Instead, he weaves a conspiracy theory to discredit one (Leavitt) and totally ignores the other (fiancé / ex-husband).  There's a narrative to be told here.  Pesky things like massive discrepancies between Ms. Denson's claims about what "witnesses" would say and what those witnesses have actually said aren't convenient and get glossed over or ignored.

This is an interview that is supposed to be "factual...precise and very truthful?"

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: The interviewer asks Ms. Denson if there were any other witnesses to her meeting Elder Asay, and she says yes.  However, they do not explore that at all.  No explanation of who these additional witnesses are.  Instead, we get the interviewer saying "Very good.  So this is starting to look much better for your version of events about meeting Carlos Asay, and much worse for Bishop Ron Leavitt."

Actually, not really.  Her hearsay suggestions about what her fiancé would say about the meeting with Elder Asay don't jibe with his public statements expressing skepticism about her allegations against Bishop.

"Radio Free Mormon" continues to not impress.

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, I love my husband, and I have nothing against you.

Yes, I really felt the love when you publicly accused me of speaking in "unChristlike and Pharasitic" ways, and also publicly declared that you hope that I live nowhere near you.

🤨

Quote

And maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd rather believe the song is about dancing.

Undoubtedly it is.  But there's the whole double entendre thing, "a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent."

As regarding the specific song in question (and its specific line "She knows how to shake that thing"), see here:

Quote

shake that thing

To engage in sexual intercourse or to evoke its motions while dancing.  Taken at face value, shake that thing was a dance done [] to fast syncopated music.
...
A contemporary (1927) issue of the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology noted: "'Shake it,' 'shake that thing,' etc. Such expressions are very frequent in the blues, ostensibly they refer to dancing, but they are really Negro vulgar expressions relating to coitus."  ... The expression shake that thing was resurrected as a vague risqué allusion in Ray Charles's "Mess Around" (1953).

-Barrelhouse Words: A Blues Dialect Dictionary, pp. 212-213.

So I think it's not just me and your husband that recognizes the song for what it is.  I also think the song's sexual innuendo is why the interviewer used it (that, and that the interviewer is a crass, vulgar person who apparently thinks that introducing a song with sexual innuendos is just hilarious to include in an interview with a survivor of sexual assault).

And again, what does dancing have to do with Joseph Bishop?  Why is the interviewer introducing this song "in honor of Joseph Bishop" if the song is only about dancing?

Quote

ETA: Just thinking about it, I do wonder why he chose that song. I'll ask him on the Mormon Discussions Podcast comment section and see what happens.  

I think it's patently obvious why he chose that song.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, and Leavitt denies this.

Correct.

I'm not seeing that as odd.  He apparently had a fairly close relationship with her.  He apparently knew quite a bit about her history, likely including her fabricated "attempted rape" claim when she was a missionary.   And he said she "tended to embellish experiences."  So when she presented the claim about being sexually assaulted by the MTC president, I think I can understand (but not condone or excuse) his skepticism and failure to report the matter to the police or to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac 

And depending what went along with showing porn, it might have been a very limited accusation as opposed to a broad one (were there claims of grooming or was it presented as a one time thing, was she alone with him or did Leavitt understand she was with a supposed companion, the other girl he referred to, etc). The claim might have been the only thing mentioned or it might have been part of a list of things she was having trouble dealing with in her life at that stage. If the latter, he might have asked her later if she felt she had resolved her problems and she answered affirmatively thinking he meant something else while he saw that as an demonstration the story had been embellished, but she was taking it back.  Thus no need to withhold a temple recommend for making false accusations.

As far as socializing with her, that could be out of loving concern as much as no worries.

We don’t know if the reason his daughter stayed with Denson in Taiwan was more because Leavitt trusted her husband to provide stability or perhaps felt his daughter just needed a cheap place to stay at night and was mature enough to handle a little harmless craziness (which is how Leavitt appears to have viewed the claims as long as they weren’t made public when they could be harmful) or because he trusted Denson to take care of her.  Maybe he encouraged his daughter to stay there because he wanted to see how Denson was doing.  It is not like Denson had attacked anyone herself.  Leavitt might not have sent a son out of concern of a false accusation, but seen a woman as safe from the chance of any perceived “embellishments “.

Is there any details on why the daughter was there and if she was alone or how long she stayed?

Given details of the conversations they had overtime are pretty much completely lacking, we have no way really to judge if Leavitt believed her and lied about it now unless some record of her meeting with Elder Asay turns up. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Listening to it now. Fascinating stuff, and she doesn't come across as some kind of loon.

Add-on:  adding this at the top so as to make it clear I was wrong in my memory, Denson shared a post of another person who as a small part of the post mentioned the name of the woman I am referring to below.  Denson herself and maybe even the man mentioning that woman may not have no the details of her claims, but perhaps only knew she was a child abuse advocate. Otoh, Denson is supporting Karren by sharing his post and I find his claims dubious after researching them, but he isn't as extreme as baby sacrifice.  

Original comment:  I really would like to know the details of the alleged identity fraud case as it is very much in contrast to her personal appearance. That and the reasoning of her support on her FB Page of the woman who is claiming babies are being sacrificed in temples around the world. 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And it's interesting that he received three calls from the church right before the interview, I'd love to know what was said. 

Who shared the info that it was three calls?  If Leavitt, seems strange that he would if these were for the purpose of a conspiracy. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I really would like to know the details of the alleged identity fraud case as it is very much in contrast to her personal appearance. That and her support on her FB Page of the woman who is claiming babies are being sacrificed in temples around the world. 

Hadn't heard of the baby sacrifice thing, so I can't comment on that. 

I know there's been talk about identity fraud, but no details seem to be forthcoming. Do you know more about this than I do? (I'm sure you do.) I'm not saying she's 100% telling the truth, just that she's been depicted as some kind of deranged person, so either she's a great actor, or she's more credible than some people want me to believe. I suppose it will all out, as they say. All I can say for sure is that Bishop seems to have admitted that something untoward happened with at least one sister missionary. It makes my stomach hurt to know that was apparently happening while I was in the MTC.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who shared the info that it was three calls?  If Leavitt, seems strange that he would if these were for the purpose of a conspiracy. 

Leavitt told KUTV that he had received 3 calls from church officials in the 10 days before the story broke. 

Quote

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.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

Her description of her interview with Elder Asay is interesting:

Quote

 

Denson: You know, I don't really remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember explaining to Elder Asay the grooming process.  How there were four sister missionaries, including myself, and then there were two, including myself, and then it became one-on-one.  And I remember sharing the inappropriate sexual stories that Elder, excuse me, President Bishop shared with me about his wife, and about the hot tub or hot springs.  I don't remember a whole lot more.  I just remember telling him what happened.

Interviewer: What was Elder Asay's reaction?

Denson: He was rather stoic.  He didn't seem to have a lot of emotion.  He seemed very rigid, like he was just taking the information in.  But it didn't move him at all.  

Interviewer: What did he say at the end of the meeting?

Denson: The last thing I remember at the end of the meeting was that Elder Asay said he would look into it and get back to me.

Interviewer: Okay.  And that was it?

Denson: That was it.

Interviewer: And did you ever hear anything back from Carlos Asay or anybody else in the Church relating to this?

Denson: Not a word.  Not a word.  But again, I left the country shortly after I got married, and I was in Taiwan for about three years or so.  So I guess because we're members of the Church, we have church records and they would have known how to get a hold of me.  But noone did, no.  It wasn't until I returned from Taiwan, got divorced, and started looking into what happened with Joseph Bishop.  I was very curious to know what the follow-up was.  

 

So did she actually report a sexual assault to Elder Asay?  It sounds like she did not.  She says she reported "the grooming process" and "inappropriate sexual stories."  She says "I just remember telling him what happened."  Is that last bit intended to mean that "what happened" was a sexual assault?

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And it's interesting that he received three calls from the church right before the interview, I'd love to know what was said. 

Who shared the info that it was three calls?  If Leavitt, seems strange that he would if these were for the purpose of a conspiracy. 

Well, the interviewer suggests that Leavitt let it "slip" that he had received three calls.  That way it can still be a conspiracy.

The interview is more about crafting a narrative then getting the facts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Her description of her interview with Elder Asay is interesting:

So did she actually report a sexual assault to Elder Asay?  It sounds like she did not.  She says she reported "the grooming process" and "inappropriate sexual stories."  She says "I just remember telling him what happened."  Is that last bit intended to mean that "what happened" was a sexual assault?

-Smac

That would be my assumption, though she doesn't come out and say it. I'm content to let the legal process go on, but I'm not sure we're ever going to know what really happened. If there's corroboration from the other sister missionary or anyone else, that would make a huge difference. I guess we'll have to see what happens. 

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That would be my assumption, though she doesn't come out and say it.

Kinda odd that this is a key component of her narrative against the Church, and yet she "doesn't come out and say it."

Too bad the interviewer didn't just ask for clarification on this point.  Too bad he didn't take a Joe Friday, "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach to this interview.  He apparently he was too fixated on crafting a narrative against the LDS Church (he gets pretty brazen about it in a few spots).

Quote

I'm content to let the legal process go on, but I'm not sure we're ever going to know what really happened.

I agree.  Even if the legal process were to go on, I don't think it would help.  We are left with surmises and guesses.  

Quote

If there's corroboration from the other sister missionary or anyone else, that would make a huge difference. I guess we'll have to see what happens. 

The hearing on the motions to dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday.  I suspect both motions will be granted.

As for corroboration, Ms. Denson isn't doing very well so far.  Leavitt?  Nope.  Her fiancé?  Nope.

These defects in her narrative do not exculpate Bishop, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Well, the interviewer suggests that Leavitt let it "slip" that he had received three calls.  That way it can still be a conspiracy.

The interview is more about crafting a narrative then getting the facts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Meh. I doubt the church officials involved were too pleased to hear Brother Leavitt say he'd talked to them 3 times in the previous 10 days. That kind of contact with one side in a legal case raises issues of bias affecting memory, whether or not its intentional. And I don't think there was an implication of conspiracy, just that Leavitt's statement means his recollection might be taken cautiously. 

Not everyone is out to destroy the church at all costs. What I find interesting is that the interviewer gives her plenty of opportunities to embellish, and she seems to be very cautious about saying things she either doesn't remember or that would be putting words in other people's mouths. 

A lot of people have portrayed her as a dishonest and borderline crazy person who is maliciously and falsely accusing the church. You know, she may well be, but I don't think we have enough to go on at this point. When you're talking about memories from more than 30 years ago, you're unlikely to get many "facts." Like I said, I'm interested in what other people have to say. In the meantime, I'm glad she gave the interview, as you get a better picture of context within which all this happened. There's no reason to treat what she says as the gospel truth, but I don't think we can wave it away, either.