Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[Calm]

She accuses, iirc, her ex husband of having sex with a number of women he baptized...apparently while they were in Japan (transcript). So she can easily claim her ex is lying to get back at her while seemingly making her own case appear more solid by adding other people's Involvement. 

I always felt her accusation about her husband was a bit much (14 women in 4 years, “had sex with women that he was baptizing”, “yet his Sunday School lessons were amazing”).  Why was he, a Sunday School teacher baptizing new members?  Were there likely to be multiple new female members joining only to then have sex with not only the man who baptized them, but a married man to boot?

It feels “embellished”.  If this is how she talked back then, I can understand why Leavitt doubted her (should still have reported it) 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Kinda odd that this is a key component of her narrative against the Church, and she 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).

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.  

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

The problem with the Leavitt statement is that it's so brief, and there's no follow-up. It's hard to get much of anything from the tiny snippets published in the Trib and KUTV. The ex-husband clearly didn't believe her, though again he's corroborating that she told him about it (which is why she talked about him in the first place). Certainly the ex-husband is not in a position to know what happened to her years before they married. I heard some stories of abuse from my wife's extended family several years ago that I thought were nuts and chalked up to the person reporting it as being mentally unstable (which she is). At the time I thought it was baseless slander against a man who was, at the time, an LDS bishop. A few years later, I heard enough corroboration from other family members to realize that, mentally unstable or not, she was telling the truth, as the events she described were quite similar to other known instances of abuse by that same person. 

I guess that's why I'm cautious about this. If you set out to discredit someone like McKenna Denson, it's not hard to do. She isn't a saint and clearly has a lot of issues. That does not invalidate her story any more than it validates it.  Caution is advised.

[jkwilliams]

According to her, she has at least two witnesses who saw her meet Elder Asay. If that's true, it would certainly give more credence to her account. 

[smac97]

Her explanation as to why and how she set up and executed her "interview" with Joseph Bishop is interesting.  She lays it out this way:

• 1. In November 2017 she found out that her husband was serving in a stake presidency in Idaho.  This angered her because her husband owed her substantial back child support.
• 2. In thinking about this she thought her husband serving in a stake presidency was wrong, and so was what Joseph Bishop had done.  So she immediately called the Provo City Police and explained her allegations. 
• 3. The Provo City Police referred her to the BYU PD.  In November 2017 she made a report to the dispatcher, and then shortly thereafter heard from a Sargeant at the BYUPD, Bob Nelson, who asked her questions about the allegations.  He went and looked for the room at the MTC, then called her back and scheduled a time for him and his partner to interview her in her home town (Pueblo, CO).  They were then going to go to interview Joseph Bishop.
• 4. She said that she felt "validated" by the seriousness with which the BYU PD handled her claims, but that she also "panicked" because she thought that they would go interview Joseph Bishop and that he would lie to them.  She said she felt like she had to get a confession out of Joseph Bishop.  
• 5. She called Church HQ and posed as a former missionary who had served in Argentina when Joseph Bishop was the mission president.  The someone at the Church, Jared Kessler, gave her Bishop's address in Chandler, AZ.  She looked up that address in the Church's meetinghouse locator website and obtained the address for Bishop's ward, and the bishop's number, and the missionaries' number.  She called the bishop, who didn't answer.  She then called the missionaries and spoke with an "Elder Stark," who she says was obviously "brand new" because he "didn't have a clue what he was talking about."  She then used false pretenses (she lied) to the missionary, saying that a group of former missionaries who had served under Joseph Bishop, and that they were planning a "surprise" for him.  They then gave her his cell number.
• 6. She then called and made airline and car rental reservations.  Then she called Joseph Bishop and again used false pretenses (lied) to him, introducing herself as writing an article about "high-level Mormon officials, mission presidents, temple presidents, because they don't get enough attention for the work that they do," and that she would "love to" interview him.  He agreed (enthusiastically).  [Both Denson and the interviewer laugh at her description about how excited he was at the prospect of being interviewed.]
• 7. She flew down to Arizona, then called Josph Bishop and yet again used false pretenses (lied) to him, saying that her other appointment with a temple president from Taiwan, Mark Gillespie, was running late, and asked if he (Bishop) could come to her hotel and meet with her in a conference room there.  He asked if he could bring his wife and son with him, and she said yes, but then she again used false pretenses (lied) to get him to agree to a one-on-one interview with her, even if he brought family members.
• 8. She then says that she spoke with a friend, who gave her tips on how to talk to a "narcissist" and "exploit his areas of weakness so that he might feel safe talking." 
• 9. She says she then met with Joseph Bishop and used duct tape to hide her recorder under a table "because I didn't want him to know I had a recorder."  She then walked into the room, "dropped" her water bottle, and while retrieving it taped the recorder under the table.
• 10. She says that about 44+ minutes into the interview, when the "tables turned" (when she started with accusatory questions, I think), she says: "When the tables turned, and I was trying to express to him and explain who I was, he thought I was different people.  His demeanor didn't really change.  In fact, when he started asking questions and volunteering information, it seemed very rehearsed.  It seemed like he had already done it, and this was not the first time somebody had accused him of something."
• 11. She says that he didn't have any problems with his memory.  She says she thinks that he has abused so many women that "he can't keep us all straight."  This is why he confused her with a woman who had "biker friends," why he thought she was "the girl with breast enhancement," and so on.
• 12. After the interview she spoke with the BYU PD, but did not give them the recording.  They then traveled to Arizona and interviewed Joseph Bishop.

Ms. Denson seems to delight in describing her multiple subterfuges.  She tricked (lied to) the fellow at the Church HQ.  And the missionaries.  And Joseph Bishop.  She relishes in dishing on the fake details she added to make her lies appear sincere and legitimate (the "surprise" party for Bishop, the other interview with "Mark Gillespie" running late, etc.).

Does she not realize that publicly bragging about what a good liar she is doesn't exactly burnish her credibility as to other matters?  Including matters that hinge mostly or entirely on her say-so?

What on earth is she thinking she is doing in this interview?  "You can trust that I am telling the truth about Joseph Bishop.  By way of evidence, let me explain how good a liar I had to be, over and over and over again, to get that recording of him..."

A bit of free advice for Ms. Denson: Publicly bragging about what an effective liar you are while your lawsuit - that depends almost entirely on your personal credibility - is still pending is not a very good litigation strategy.

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem with the Leavitt statement is that it's so brief, and there's no follow-up. It's hard to get much of anything from the tiny snippets published in the Trib and KUTV.

It would be nice to have more information from him.  But "No, I didn't report it" seems to sum things up.  I'm not sure how much more there was to follow up on.

Moreover, the brevity of his statement speaks to the relevance of the statute of limitations.  It was, I think, hard for him to come up with particulars and specifics as to something that happened 30+ years ago.  That's why the legal system has limitations periods.  Evidence disappears.  Recollections fade.

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The ex-husband clearly didn't believe her, though again he's corroborating that she told him about it (which is why she talked about him in the first place).

I'm not sure he has corroborated anything.  Her hearsay statements attributed to him (that he was present at her interview with Elder Asay) aren't corroboration.

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Certainly the ex-husband is not in a position to know what happened to her years before they married.

That's not what Denson is saying.  She's holding him up as a corroborating witness.  She says she told him about the sexual assault, which he characterizes as a false claim.  She says he accompanied her when she met with Elder Asay, which he has never stated.  

Ms. Denson can't have it both ways.  She can't point to her ex-husband as a corroborating witness about her claims (portions of the narrative, anyway), and then expect us to disregard his skepticism about her claims.

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I heard some stories of abuse from my wife's extended family several years ago that I thought were nuts and chalked up to the person reporting it as being mentally unstable (which she is). At the time I thought it was baseless slander against a man who was, at the time, an LDS bishop. A few years later, I heard enough corroboration from other family members to realize that, mentally unstable or not, she was telling the truth, as the events she described were quite similar to other known instances of abuse by that same person. 

I agree that this can happen.  But it can also not happen.  Sometimes there really are fake allegations (Ms. Denson admits to fabricating one, and her ex-husband says there was at least one more on top of that).

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess that's why I'm cautious about this. If you set out to discredit someone like McKenna Denson, it's not hard to do. She isn't a saint and clearly has a lot of issues. That does not invalidate her story any more than it validates it.  Caution is advised.

I agree.  I think we can't really definitively validate or invalidate her story.  We just take this as a cautionary tale, learn from it, and move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

According to her, she has at least two witnesses who saw her meet Elder Asay. If that's true, it would certainly give more credence to her account. 

"According to her" and "If that's true" being the operative phrases.

The interviewer conveniently failed to explore that, so we're just left to take Ms. Denson's word for it.  The word of a person who spends quite of time describing in detail, and even laughing about, the various lies she told several different people in order to get her "interview" with Joseph Bishop.

I am curious as to what you all think of her credibility now that she has lovingly described her expertise in subterfuge.  Inserting details.  Fabricating exigencies.  She is publicly admitting to these things.  She is bragging and laughing about having done these things.  And yet when it comes to the particular claims that, if true, could have netted her a nice sum of money from the LDS Church, her word is the 100% unvarnished truth?

Ron Leavitt said that his impression of her is that Ms. Denson "tended to embellish experiences."  Um, yeah.  Big time.  As evidenced by her interview with Mark Gillespie.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

I am going to make a prediction here.  If Ms. Denson's case manages to survive the currently-pending motions to dismiss, her statements in this podcast are going to come back to haunt her.  Big time.

Imagine her trying to explain in a deposition that she is an excellent liar as to some things in this case, but that she's telling the truth about others.  Imagine her trying to explain why she was laughing in this podcast as she describes her multiple deceptions.  Imagine her trying to reject Ron Leavitt's characterizaton of her as "tend[ing] to embellish experiences" and then explaining her references to "Mark Gillespie" in her communications with Joseph Bishop.

What a trainwreck of a client she is.  She killed her own lawsuit in the first instance by scuttling negotiations between her attorneys and the Church.  And now she's destroying her own credibility by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  And the sad part is that she seems to want to team up with people who have no interest at all in her welfare.  First Ryan McKnight helped her kill settlement negotiations, now this "interviewer" is helping her destroy her own credibility as a witness.  To them, I guess she's just a pawn.  Useful in making the LDS Church look bad for a bit, but otherwise disposable.  

Her attorney, Mr. Vernon, must be going out of his mind.  Unless, of course, they've already thrown in the towel on the lawsuit.  If that's the case, then her public bragging about her skillful use of deceit is probably a no-harm-no-foul kind of thing.

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, 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 the reasoning of her support on her FB Page of the woman who is claiming babies are being sacrificed in temples around the world. 

Huh?  Where is she doing this?  Can you provide a link?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Where is she doing this?  Can you provide a link?

Thanks,

-Smac

On her Facebook page a few weeks ago iirc, it is all inclusive with Sam Young and some likely valid accusations....got family stuff now, so will link later.

The fraud case was in Feb.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

2 hours ago, 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 the reasoning of her support on her FB Page of the woman who is claiming babies are being sacrificed in temples around the world. 

Holy crap.  Seriously?

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am going to make a prediction here.  If Ms. Denson's case manages to survive the currently-pending motions to dismiss, her statements in this podcast are going to come back to haunt her.  Big time.

Imagine her trying to explain in a deposition that she is an excellent liar as to some things in this case, but that she's telling the truth about others.  Imagine her trying to explain why she was laughing in this podcast as she describes her multiple deceptions.  Imagine her trying to reject Ron Leavitt's characterizaton of her as "tend[ing] to embellish experiences" and then explaining her references to "Mark Gillespie" in her communications with Joseph Bishop.

What a trainwreck of a client she is.  She killed her own lawsuit in the first instance by scuttling negotiations between her attorneys and the Church.  And now she's destroying her own credibility by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  And the sad part is that she seems to want to team up with people who have no interest at all in her welfare.  First Ryan McKnight helped her kill settlement negotiations, now this "interviewer" is helping her destroy her own credibility as a witness.  To them, I guess she's just a pawn.  Useful in making the LDS Church look bad for a bit, but otherwise disposable.  

You don’t do yourself any favors when you accuse people like my cousin and interviewer of using her as a disposable pawn in their never-ending quest to harm the church. I try hard to assume good intentions, although sometimes I realize I shouldn’t have, but I don’t find it helpful to depict your perceived enemies as evil and callous in their disregard for other humans. 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don’t do yourself any favors when you accuse people like my cousin and interviewer of using her as a disposable pawn in their never-ending quest to harm the church. I try hard to assume good intentions, although sometimes I realize I shouldn’t have, but I don’t find it helpful to depict your perceived enemies as evil and callous in their disregard for other humans. 

If we didn't have the experience of observing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson getting dropped by those using her as a weapon against the Church once her usefulness wore off, perhaps we wouldn't tend to see parallels in present-day occurrences.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don’t do yourself any favors when you accuse people like my cousin and interviewer of using her as a disposable pawn in their never-ending quest to harm the church.

Perhaps not.  Perhaps Mr. McKnight was just thoughtless and ignorant, rather than calculated and uncaring, in what he did.

What he did, however, was help McKenna Denson destroy her own attorney's settlement negotiations with the Church.  And he didn't do it in order to make the LDS Church look good, right?  So we're left with surmising that his motive was "to harm the church."

Quote

I try hard to assume good intentions, although sometimes I realize I shouldn’t have, but I don’t find it helpful to depict your perceived enemies as evil and callous in their disregard for other humans. 

I've never called him "evil and callous."

I find his behavior fairly repellant.  As I've said previously:

Quote

Quote

Thus, I cannot understand how Mormon Leaks thinks it is not aiding and abetting the breach of Church employees' fiduciary duties to their employer, e.g. duty of loyalty and confidentiality, by giving "substantial assistance or encouragement to [the employee]."

I think the answer is fairly clear: Mr. McKnight knows he is "aiding and abetting the breach of Church employees' fiduciary duties to their employer."

He just doesn't care.  Or even worse than that, that is precisely what he wants.

And here:

Quote

Quote

But I honestly expect greater civility from someone professing to be a faithful believer than I am from McKnight.

Nobody is questioning Mr. McKnight's civility.  We are questioning his integrity.  Inducing other people into acts of dishonesty and illegality demonstrates, in my view, a lack of integrity.  This is particularly so for an ax-grinding opponent of the LDS Church like Mr. McKnight.  I question his declarations about "transparency," particularly since virtually everything he posts is intended to incite hostility or resentment against the LDS Church, or to embarrass the the Church or make it look bad in some way.

Contrast Mr. McKnight with, say, D. Michael Quinn.  He's clearly had many critical things to say about the Church, but in the end I think he's willing to give the Church credit where credit is due.  McKnight is all about making the Church look bad.

And here:

Quote

Quote

We have yet to even know how many items, if any, of the items posted as leaks through Mormonleaks was a break of any sort of contract by anyone. 

I think it's pretty obvious that he is inducing employees of the Church to breach the Church's trust in them.  

I'll look into the legal complexities later, but the generalized concept is that I find it reprehensible for a person who dislikes a religious organization taking calculated steps to induce members of that Church to use their privileged access (through their employment by the Church) to wrongfully divulge the Church's propriety and confidential ecclesiastical and business documentation and information.

And this:

Quote

In contrast, the Church's employer relationship with its employees is impaired when an employee breaches his/her employment agreement.  Can the Church state a claim that Mr. McKnight's website functions as an inducement/solicitation for Church employees to breach their employment agreement with the Church?

And what about employees that the Church discovers as having sent documents to Mr. McKnight?  If they are fired for their misconduct, and if they were to then approach Mr. McKnight, what would his response be, I wonder?  "Hey, I never formally, technically 'solicited' anything from you personally.  I just set up and run an organization and website that give 'sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents.'  If you engage in the behavior that my website is designed to facilitate, and if that behavior is a breach of your employment agreement, and if you get fired as a result, too bad.  Not my problem.  Go pound sand."

Mighty upstanding guy, this Mr. McKnight.  He's essentially admitted to this possibility ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

Pac Man was right.  Anyone who trusts Mr. McKnight is kidding themselves.  He may have protected himself legally from the fallout of the behavior he is encouraging from others.  That only speaks to the lack of ethics inherent in his effort.  Him coming here to gloat about how he has insulated himself from legal repercussions while throwing his "sources" under the bus only makes him look worse.

...

Do statements by Mr. McKnight, both on his website and elsewhere (particularly where he brags about having "sources" who are employees of the Church) constitute evidence that Mr. McKnight has "intentionally interfered" with the Church's "contractual relationships" with its employees?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Perhaps Mr. McKnight can get away with it.  Perhaps he can induce others to do his dirty work for him.  Perhaps he can then get off scot-free while his "sources" who are employed by the Church, who responded to his website, lose their jobs, and while the Church's contractual relationship with its employees is damaged or destroyed.  Perhaps the Church has no remedy at law for what Mr. McKnight is doing.  Perhaps that explains why Mr. McKnight has chosen to come here and gloat about all of this.

I have never met Mr. McKnight.  But I think my criticism of his behavior is reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If we didn't have the experience of observing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson getting dropped by those using her as a weapon against the Church once her usefulness wore off, perhaps we wouldn't tend to see parallels in present-day occurrences.

I was too young to witness Sonia Johnson's 15 minutes as a useful pawn.  I do, however, remember Cindy Sheehan's experience.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps not.  Perhaps Mr. McKnight was just thoughtless and ignorant, rather than calculated and uncaring, in what he did.

What he did, however, was help McKenna Denson destroy her own attorney's settlement negotiations with the Church.  And he didn't do it in order to make the LDS Church look good, right?  So we're left with surmising that his motive was "to harm the church."

I've never called him "evil and callous."

I find his behavior fairly repellant.  As I've said previously:

And here:

And here:

And this:

I have never met Mr. McKnight.  But I think my criticism of his behavior is reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

By definition someone who uses people as pawns and disposes of them is callous and evil. That seems obvious. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By definition someone who uses people as pawns and disposes of them is callous and evil. That seems obvious. 

Or thoughtless and ignorant.  And irresponsible (that's a biggie) ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 16, 2018 by smac97

[USU78]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I was too young to witness Sonia Johnson's 15 minutes as a useful pawn.  I do, however, remember Cindy Sheehan's experience.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yup. Also a sad case.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or thoughtless and ignorant.  And irresponsible (that's a biggie) ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

Thanks,

-Smac

I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"According to her" and "If that's true" being the operative phrases.

The interviewer conveniently failed to explore that, so we're just left to take Ms. Denson's word for it.  The word of a person who spends quite of time describing in detail, and even laughing about, the various lies she told several different people in order to get her "interview" with Joseph Bishop.

I am curious as to what you all think of her credibility now that she has lovingly described her expertise in subterfuge.  Inserting details.  Fabricating exigencies.  She is publicly admitting to these things.  She is bragging and laughing about having done these things.  And yet when it comes to the particular claims that, if true, could have netted her a nice sum of money from the LDS Church, her word is the 100% unvarnished truth?

Ron Leavitt said that his impression of her is that Ms. Denson "tended to embellish experiences."  Um, yeah.  Big time.  As evidenced by her interview with Mark Gillespie.

Thanks,

-Smac

So Mark Gillespie = “Radio Free Mormon” = Consiglieri?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So Mark Gillespie = “Radio Free Mormon” = Consiglieri?

That would be news to me and to consig, as well, I would think. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I like life better when I don’t think the worst of people. 

Thinking the worst of people: Isn’t that kind of the rationale behind MormonLeaks? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thinking the worst of people: Isn’t that kind of the rationale behind MormonLeaks? 

Not that I’m aware of. Do you have some special insight I don’t have?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That would be news to me and to consig, as well, I would think. 

Just seeking clarification. I don’t know who Mark Gillespie is, and I’ve only given casual attention at most to this thread, so I readily admit I don’t have all the dots connected.

By the way, if consiglierie/RFM filed a GRAMA motion to force BYU police to provide an unredacted document, wouldn’t it be a fairly simple matter to find out his identity? I mean, it would be on the public record, right? (Not that I’m interested enough to do this myself.) 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Just seeking clarification. I don’t know who Mark Gillespie is, and I’ve only given casual attention at most to this thread, so I readily admit I don’t have all the dots connected.

By the way, if consiglierie/RFM filed a GRAMA motion to force BYU police to provide an unredacted document, wouldn’t it be a fairly simple matter to find out his identity? I mean, it would be on the public record, right? (Not that I’m interested enough to do this myself.) 

I don’t know who Mark Gillespie is, but I do know who consiglieri is. Apparently his name is not public knowledge, so I won’t be sharing it. I’d imagine you could find out, as you say. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not that I’m aware of. Do you have some special insight I don’t have?

Just my own perception and analysis. Isn’t the motivation for this  theft of proprietary information that he wants to force the Church leaders to be “transparent” becuse he doesn’t trust them to have decency and good character? Doesn’t that amount to “thinking the worst of people”?