Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've already had this discussion with you of why Ryan started MormonLeaks and his stated motives.

Right.  Not buying it.  "Actions speak louder than words" and all that.

Ryan McKnight is actively encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.  He can spout high-minded claims about his motives all day long, but in the end his behavior speaks far louder.

Quote

Go ahead and attack his methods, but I think you're overreaching when you portray him as callous and evil.

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

Quote

I know, you didn't use those exact words, but someone who maliciously encourages people to break the law and then is willing to throw them under the bus to attack God's true church is, by definition, callous and evil.

Thou sayest.

I just wish you saw it.

I would have the same disgust if Mr. McKnight was actively encouraging others to steal from you.  And that disgust would have been augmented by his publicly bragging about how he can get away with it.

Quote

I do not believe that's what Ryan is doing. Obviously, you disagree. 

He's not encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and secretly send the stolen materials to him?  Really?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Right.  Not buying it.  "Actions speak louder than words" and all that.

Ryan McKnight is actively encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.  He can spout high-minded claims about his motives all day long, but in the end his behavior speaks far louder.

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

Thous sayest.

I just wish you saw it.

I would have the same disgust if Mr. McKnight was actively encouraging others to steal from you.  And that disgust would have been augmented by his publicly bragging about how he can get away with it.

He's not encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and secretly send the stolen materials to him?  Really?

Thanks,

-SMac

That's not how I read him. YMMV. 

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can already see the consequences of what they've done.  Her settlement negotiations were destroyed, due in large part to Mr. McKnight publishing her recording to the world.  She obviously bears a lot of responsibility for that, perhaps even the lion's share.  But Mr. McKnight's role in that was not insignificant.

Consig has just published a podcast that does huge damage to Ms. Denson's credibility.  And Consig was there every step of the way.  Egging her on.  Prodding her for details.  Laughing along with her as she vividly describes all the deceptions and false details she used to embellish the narrative she used to track down Joseph Bishop.  

I don't know definitively that Ms. Denson's lawsuit is DOA.  But if it manages to survive the motions to dismiss, Consig has made Mr. Vernon's job in prosecuting it on behalf of Ms. Denson substantially more difficult.  Consig is a lawyer, isn't he?  Couldn't he have stopped for five minutes and given some consideration to the wrecking-ball effect his podcast would have on Ms. Denson's credibility as a witness?  Does he even care?  Or does his animosity toward the LDS Church (and the ego boost of scoring an interview with Ms. Denson) trump all other considerations?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, we are now trying to get inside the mind(s) of the fact-finder(s).  I think her actions can be understood and explained in the context of someone who is an emotional wreck as you said in prior posts.  I know some would understand and give her a pass.  Also, there are the Bishop admissions that go a long way toward rehabilitation.  Further still, her tone of voice and her responses in the RFM podcast sound like someone who is recovering and believable.  She may have been a little too enthusiastic at times but sounds believable especially given Bishop's admissions.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not how I read him. YMMV. 

In all this back and forth, it is pretty hard to argue against McKnight's actual words and actions, though, isn't it? Without imparting labels such as callous, malicious, etc., at some point, it really doesn't matter if his motives are (to him) altruistic, does it? 

I think smac was simply pointing out the (pretty hard to argue against) ramifications of his words and actions, even if he insists that we've got it all wrong, and even if those who know him well insist that we're misreading him. I don't think his own words and actions leave much wiggle room there. 

That he "friendly fired" on McKenna Denson is aside from all of this (and I also don't think that he intended to hurt her or her case. It seems to me that he had no clue what the long and short-term effects of his blathering and meddling in this matter were going to have). 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Exiled said:

Well, we are now trying to get inside the mind(s) of the fact-finder(s).  I think her actions can be understood and explained in the context of someone who is an emotional wreck as you said in prior posts.  I know some would understand and give her a pass.  Also, there are the Bishop admissions that go a long way toward rehabilitation.  Further still, her tone of voice and her responses in the RFM podcast sound like someone who is recovering and believable.  She may have been a little too enthusiastic at times but sounds believable especially given Bishop's admissions.

I can't fault her for laughing here and there, as for many people, laughter is a way of coping with painful situations and memories. Overall, she struck me as someone who is relieved that after all this time, people are listening without dismissing her. As I said, her account of life in the MTC in January and February 1984 in our conversation was spot on, without embellishment. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

In all this back and forth, it is pretty hard to argue against McKnight's actual words and actions, though, isn't it? Without imparting labels such as callous, malicious, etc., at some point, it really doesn't matter if his motives are (to him) altruistic, does it? 

I think smac was simply pointing out the (pretty hard to argue against) ramifications of his words and actions, even if he insists that we've got it all wrong, and even if those who know him well insist that we're misreading him. I don't think his own words and actions leave much wiggle room there. 

That he "friendly fired" on McKenna Denson is aside from all of this (and I also don't think that he intended to hurt her or her case. It seems to me that he had no clue what the long and short-term effects of his blathering and meddling in this matter were going to have). 

As I said, I have no problem with people criticizing his actions. What I object to is the mind-reading that's been going on here, especially since he has not shared publicly his side of this story (nor has he shared it with me). 

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

As I said, I have no problem with people criticizing his actions. What I object to is the mind-reading that's been going on here, especially since he has not shared publicly his side of this story (nor has he shared it with me). 

I understand that, but I think his actions and words are such that it is nigh impossible to wave away the mind-reading on grounds of "you've got him all wrong." While many who hate the Church delight in what little he is able to leak, I think most of them find him kind of embarrassing, too. But, you can't have the one side of the coin without the other, I guess. 

Yes, others' mileage varies . . . 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I can't fault her for laughing here and there, as for many people, laughter is a way of coping with painful situations and memories. Overall, she struck me as someone who is relieved that after all this time, people are listening without dismissing her. As I said, her account of life in the MTC in January and February 1984 in our conversation was spot on, without embellishment. 

For the most part, she comes across as a really good witness in the RFM podcast, at least in my opinion.  One wonders if she can hold up under cross examination from one of the church's experienced attorneys.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Exiled said:

For the most part, she comes across as a really good witness in the RFM podcast, at least in my opinion.  One wonders if she can hold up under cross examination from one of the church's experienced attorneys.

I think part of the reason that consig is being attacked is that he didn't press her on her story, as if she were a hostile witness. In all, given that this was consig's first attempt ever at an interview, he did pretty well. I would imagine he's learned a few things from the experience.

[rongo]

Just now, Exiled said:

For the most part, she comes across as a really good witness in the RFM podcast, at least in my opinion.

Even in light of her bragging (and laughing )about being a good liar, and in light of her previous false accusations and scams? 

I think this whole thing is increasingly a mirror that simply shows how we are disposed towards the Church, rather than our own sober impartiality on the "merits." And I include myself and other TBMs in this, too. It's not just the critics. We're pretty polarized. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We also must acknowledge the misconduct by Joseph Bishop, the full extent of which remains unclear.  And by Ms. Denson's stepfather, who she claims sexually abused her during her childhood.  The long-term injuries inflicted by the misconduct of these persons have

She also stated on FB she was dateraped at 19. It was a bit ambiguous in the transcript how she got pregnant. This seems likely how.

Victims of abuse are often vulnerable to sexual predators, so multiple rapes and abuse by multiple predators is not uncommon unfortunately. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well, we are now trying to get inside the mind(s) of the fact-finder(s). 

Not really.  The "fact-finder" here is the court.  The court is not really looking at the facts.  The Motion to Dismiss is not based on a factual dispute, but on a legal one - the Statute of Limitations.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think her actions can be understood and explained in the context of someone who is an emotional wreck as you said in prior posts. 

I agree that this is a strong possibility.  She seems like a shoot-ready-aim kind of person.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I know some would understand and give her a pass. 

All things being even, so would I.  But her past behavior can give rise to reasonable skepticism.  I think she was injured by Joseph Bishop, but I wonder if she "embellished" the misconduct (showing her porn) to make it something much more explosive and scandalous (rape) in order to extract a hefty settlement from the Church.  Her lack of internal discipline, her emotional problems, her anger, and the appalling ennabling actions from people like Ryan McKnight then combined to induce her to behave erratically and unwisely.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Also, there are the Bishop admissions that go a long way toward rehabilitation. 

Not really.  Bishop's admissions could just as easily be construed as corroborating Leavitt's testimony (that Denson reported that Bishop showed her pornography).

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Further still, her tone of voice and her responses in the RFM podcast sound like someone who is recovering and believable.  She may have been a little too enthusiastic at times but sounds believable especially given Bishop's admissions.

And despite "her tone of voice and her responses," the podcast includes all sorts of statements that are very damaging to her credibility.

I'm curious how the podcast, which includes her going into substantial and gleeful exposition about crafting numerous detailed falsehoods and peddling them to various parties, makes her "sound like someone who is ... believable."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I think part of the reason that consig is being attacked is that he didn't press her on her story, as if she were a hostile witness. In all, given that this was consig's first attempt ever at an interview, he did pretty well. I would imagine he's learned a few things from the experience.

Including creeping anxiety that his stake president and SP counselor friend might start turning up the heat a little more. 

That's the trajectory. I'm just surprised how long it takes in other locations for the inevitable to happen. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even in light of her bragging (and laughing )about being a good liar, and in light of her previous false accusations and scams? 

I think this whole thing is increasingly a mirror that simply shows how we are disposed towards the Church, rather than our own sober impartiality on the "merits." And I include myself and other TBMs in this, too. It's not just the critics. We're pretty polarized. 

I agree. As I said, my guess is that Bishop did something inappropriate. He seems to acknowledge as much. I do wish she had let this go through the legal process so that it wouldn't have been so tainted by all the publicity. 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Including creeping anxiety that his stake president and SP counselor friend might start turning up the heat a little more. 

That's the trajectory. I'm just surprised how long it takes in other locations for the inevitable to happen. 

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

For the most part, she comes across as a really good witness in the RFM podcast, at least in my opinion.  One wonders if she can hold up under cross examination from one of the church's experienced attorneys.

Imagine her in a deposition.  Imagine her responses to an attorney asking her about her interview with "Mark Gillespie." 

Imagine the attorney asking her about the other former missionaries who had served in Argentina under Joseph Bishop. 

Imagine the attorney asking her about what sort of "surprise" they had in store for Bishop.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her threat to murder Joseph Bishop.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her false rape claim made when she was a missionary in Washington D.C.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her identity fraud case in New Mexico.

Imagine the attorney asking her about the restaurant scam, where she falsely claimed to have been pistol-whipped in the parking lot (right after making inquiries about the restaurant's premises liability).

Imagine the attorney asking her about forging prescriptions.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her lying about receiving cancer treatments.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her lying about finding razor blades in a cake.

And these are just the things we know about publicly, and without any discovery.

Apart from whether she would "hold up under cross examination," would an impartial jury find her credible?  Honestly, I think probably not.

But this is probably neither here nor there.  I don't think the case will go to trial.  It should have been resolved via settlement, but Ms. Denson wrecked that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine her in a deposition.  Imagine her responses to an attorney asking her about her interview with "Mark Gillespie." 

Imagine the attorney asking her about the other former missionaries who had served in Argentina under Joseph Bishop. 

Imagine the attorney asking her about what sort of "surprise" they had in store for Bishop.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her threat to murder Joseph Bishop.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her false rape claim made when she was a missionary in Washington D.C.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her identity fraud case in New Mexico.

Imagine the attorney asking her about the restaurant scam, where she falsely claimed to have been pistol-whipped in the parking lot (right after making inquiries about the restaurant's premises liability).

Imagine the attorney asking her about forging prescriptions.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her lying about receiving cancer treatments.

Imagine the attorney asking her about her lying about finding razor blades in a cake.

And these are just the things we know about publicly, and without any discovery.

Apart from whether she would "hold up under cross examination," would an impartial jury find her credible?  Honestly, I think probably not.

But this is probably neither here nor there.  I don't think the case will go to trial.  It should have been resolved via settlement, but Ms. Denson wrecked that.

Thanks,

-Smac

My guess is that any trial's outcome would depend on whether there is corroboration from other witnesses or victims. If it's just her word against his, even with his vague admissions on the tape, she doesn't have much of a case. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

She also stated on FB she was dateraped at 19. It was a bit ambiguous in the transcript how she got pregnant. This seems likely how.

Yes, I thought about that.  Honestly, her podcast statement seems to have increased the ambiguity.  She repeatedly said that she gave "mixed signals" to the man.  That complicates the issue of consent.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Victims of abuse are often vulnerable to sexual predators, so multiple rapes and abuse by multiple predators is not uncommon unfortunately. 

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I thought about that.  Honestly, her podcast statement seems to have increased the ambiguity.  She repeatedly said that she gave "mixed signals" to the man.  That complicates the issue of consent.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I interpreted her as saying that, as a young woman, she thought she might have given him mixed signals and therefore felt guilty and ashamed, though she made it clear that it was not consensual. It's pretty typical in cases where someone is raped by a date or someone in their family for the victim to feel they might have contributed to the rape by giving mixed signals (which could be as little as not saying "no" loudly enough). A family member was date-raped by a boy after a stake dance when she was 16. She did not tell anyone about it until it became apparent she was pregnant. She didn't report it because she felt that it was somehow her fault, that she hadn't made it clear enough to the boy that she wasn't consenting. When she was obviously pregnant, her bishop told her she had sinned, that she was to blame because she had allowed this to happen and may even have encouraged it. She told me she struggled with shame and guilt for many years afterward, but she, like Ms. Denson, looks back and sees she wasn't at fault.

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

My guess is that any trial's outcome would depend on whether there is corroboration from other witnesses or victims.

She claims there were not any witnesses.  It was just her and Bishop in the basement.  So no forensices.  And any witness testimony (such as, say, someone who encountered her right after the assault) would be 34+ years old.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

If it's just her word against his, even with his vague admissions on the tape, she doesn't have much of a case. 

I agree.  And she has repeatedly undermined the value of "her word."  The podcast damages her credibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. 

Consiglieri (whoever he is) has shared stories about his friend in the SP who was tasked with feeling him out on assignment from the SP re: apostasy and apostate activities (I think most reasonable people would agree RFM has crossed that line over the last several months or so. Maybe the last year). Consig's narrative style --- dating back to his stories about his shocking escapades as a maverick gospel doctrine teacher, up to his lunches with his SP counselor friend and his interview with both of them --- is such that I'm certain that the people he narrates about would disagree strongly both with his description of them and "how it went" (think: his friend wink/nudging him, "get a load of that guy!" style about the stake president's naivete and manner). As I read him, I think he is very nervous about the inevitable point where he is called to account for his RFM activities, and this is complicated by his daughter's return from her mission the last year, and his frank admission that she pushed back against his know-it-all apostasy (he had previously portrayed her as a butt-kicking maverick and iconoclast on her mission. I was surprised at the frankness of that.

In short, what I was saying (apparently not very clearly) was that I sense some anxiety on his part that the bear that he keeps poking is going to eventually, finally turn on him. Even though he can't resist continuing to poke the bear. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Consiglieri (whoever he is) has shared stories about his friend in the SP who was tasked with feeling him out on assignment from the SP re: apostasy and apostate activities (I think most reasonable people would agree RFM has crossed that line over the last several months or so. Maybe the last year). Consig's narrative style --- dating back to his stories about his shocking escapades as a maverick gospel doctrine teacher, up to his lunches with his SP counselor friend and his interview with both of them --- is such that I'm certain that the people he narrates about would disagree strongly both with his description of them and "how it went" (think: his friend wink/nudging him, "get a load of that guy!" style about the stake president's naivete and manner). As I read him, I think he is very nervous about the inevitable point where he is called to account for his RFM activities, and this is complicated by his daughter's return from her mission the last year, and his frank admission that she pushed back against his know-it-all apostasy (he had previously portrayed her as a butt-kicking maverick and iconoclast on her mission. I was surprised at the frankness of that.

In short, what I was saying (apparently not very clearly) was that I sense some anxiety on his part that the bear that he keeps poking is going to eventually, finally turn on him. Even though he can't resist continuing to poke the bear. 

OK. I don't see much of that fear from where I sit. I don't know what the stake president could possibly do that could cause him any problems at this point. It's kind of like the idea that I would be worried about my stake president calling me in about my activities and beliefs. I'm not even sure that I'd care enough to even respond. Maybe I'm misreading consig, but I don't think ecclesiastical action is a major concern.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

OK. I don't see much of that fear from where I sit. I don't know what the stake president could possibly do that could cause him any problems at this point. It's kind of like the idea that I would be worried about my stake president calling me in about my activities and beliefs. I'm not even sure that I'd care enough to even respond. Maybe I'm misreading consig, but I don't think ecclesiastical action is a major concern.

I think you're largely correct. It isn't a major concern, but then it is (due to family complications, and also the finality of walking off the cliff). He mocks the Church (that's all the RFM podcasts are, really, is picking various things to mock), but I think a part of him would be sad and wistful to finally make a stark break like a resignation or an apostasy excommunication. 

There are a lot of people in that boat --- they're "out" of the Church, for all intents and purposes, but in no hurry to finalize it formally. 

Podcasters are kind of fast-tracking themselves at breakneck speed. I don't think Bill Reel (consig's partner in crime) is far behind. 

As obviously smart as consiglieri is, I think he stepped on some rakes with this Denson interview --- and I think he knows it. Instead of the back-slapping and accolades he knew he would get in advance from predictable quarters, he also has tangibly contributed to further hurting Denson's case. And, he has exposed his own motives more starkly than he would like to have, I think. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I think you're largely correct. It isn't a major concern, but then it is (due to family complications, and also the finality of walking off the cliff). He mocks the Church (that's all the RFM podcasts are, really, is picking various things to mock), but I think a part of him would be sad and wistful to finally make a stark break like a resignation or an apostasy excommunication. 

There are a lot of people in that boat --- they're "out" of the Church, for all intents and purposes, but in no hurry to finalize it formally. 

Podcasters are kind of fast-tracking themselves at breakneck speed. I don't think Bill Reel (consig's partner in crime) is far behind. 

As obviously smart as consiglieri is, I think he stepped on some rakes with this Denson interview --- and I think he knows it. Instead of the back-slapping and accolades he knew he would get in advance from predictable quarters, he also has tangibly contributed to further hurting Denson's case. And, he has exposed his own motives more starkly than he would like to have, I think. 

I find it interesting that he had the approval of Ms. Denson's attorney. If mocking the church put one on the fast track to excommunication, I would have been exed many years ago, having spent a lot of time poking fun at the church over several years. Oddly enough, when my blog was discussed in a meeting at the COB, they decided I wasn't much of a threat at all and not worth pursuing. I was almost disappointed. Time has changed my perspective, and I look back on my cynical satire as being a pretty immature way of dealing with my emotions at the time. Now the emotions have pretty much gone, as has the mocking. 

Is criticizing the church apostasy? Is poking fun at the church? I don't know. I know an active, believing member who runs a satiric site that pokes fun at Mormon culture, teachings, and practice. It can be pretty biting at times, but I've never thought he was an apostate. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody here seems to know his name.  If he wants to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking the Church, I guess that's his privilege.  It's moral cowardice IMO, but I have no interest in outing him because of it.

But if he is doing this so as to obfuscate and hide his identity from his local leaders, I think that's a bit more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't think he is (or has) attacked the church. IIRC he is still a member in good standing. His bishop and SP are aware of his involvement in the podcast (he stated as much on the other board).