Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

From McKenna on FB.

 

"..... Ron Leavitt was my bishop in 1987. I told  him Joseph Bishop sexually assaulted me in the basement of the MTC. He arranged for Elder Carlos Asay to meet with me. 
During the KUTV interview Leavitt told the reporter that he didn’t believe me, I was neurotic and tended to embellish. He told KUTV he never escalated or told anyone. 
But Joseph Bishop told BYU PD and me on a phone call that Elder Asay had in fact contacted him after he interviewed me."

Thanks for posting that.

But her lawsuit is about "fraudulent concealment" - i.e. She is claiming The Church knew in 1978 or at least 1984 of Bishop's sexual predatory behaviour and did not warn her before she entered the MTC.

Contact with Ron Leavitt was in 1987.  So I am not sure what a lucid Ron Leavitt could offer from 1987, in terms of what the Church knew in 1978 or 1984.

 

[juliann]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I can only hope that God will make things right.  I am interested in how Juliann feels about all of this as I admire her fairness and stance when it comes to women and religious beliefs.  Forgive me if I have missed her pov before as this thread has been brought to life.  For all the misgivings of Mckenna Denson....the evidence against Bishop is overwhelming...whether it is too late or not legally doesn't change a thing.  And that is sad too.

I began by accepting her claims at face value. I continue to see Bishop as a predator and I think he targeted her in some way.  But after seeing the legal analysis here, I don’t think there is the necessary proof after decades. That along with her bizarre stunts and history of rape claims make me very skeptical in accepting everything she claims. 

I have a growing discomfort with these old claims that we are expected to accept without evidence. I am more concerned with the damage this is doing to the Metoo movement. I saw a poll where disbelief is growing and I think it is because of cases like this one. 

I think there is a point where old accusations need to give way to more recent ones where there is more evidence. It isn’t fair, but this is a learning curve. I hope what comes from this is that girls/women know they will be taken seriously and need to report immediately. That will be the victory. 

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

I began by accepting her claims at face value. I continue to see Bishop as a predator and I think he targeted her in some way.  But after seeing the legal analysis here, I don’t think there is the necessary proof after decades. That along with her bizarre stunts and history of rape claims make me very skeptical in accepting everything she claims. 

I have a growing discomfort with these old claims that we are expected to accept without evidence. I am more concerned with the damage this is doing to the Metoo movement. I saw a poll where disbelief is growing and I think it is because of cases like this one. 

I think there is a point where old accusations need to give way to more recent ones where there is more evidence. It isn’t fair, but this is a learning curve. I hope what comes from this is that girls/women know they will be taken seriously and need to report immediately. That will be the victory. 

Thank you.  I appreciate and always feel that you own your great honesty...

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, provoman said:

ok a thought experiment.

What did Bishop tell elder Wells? Keep in mind that Bishop told Denson that he - Bishop - never sought help. Never sought treatment. Instead he told Denson that he  self-treated/self-medicated by serving as much as possible.
 

Given that Bishop admits he never sought help, what indicates that he confessed to Elder Wells that sexual predatory/sexually abusive behavior?

 

Joseph Bishop: But I have this thing about, I have this sexual addiction, what can I say?
Denson             :But, did you get treatment?
Joseph Bishop: No.
Denson             :So what did you, how ...
Joseph Bishop: I kept fighting, and I kept trying to pray and this and that and everything else to get over it. I'm now, I now feel healed in the sense that I am not tempted....

 

Joseph Bishop: Oh my. I have struggled. I have struggled my whole life on this very issue.
Denson             : With no counseling, no way of making a change of behavior?
Joseph Bishop: How could you, how could even ... I used to say to myself all the time, I'm a hypocrite.
Denson             : You were.
Joseph Bishop: Yeah, of course.
Denson             : Yeah, damn right you were.
Joseph Bishop: Okay now what can a hypocrite do.
Denson             : Oh, yeah. So you tried to change your behavior ...
Joseph Bishop: Tried to solve it myself. I'm not going to do this anymore, I'm not going to do this anymore, I'm not going to think about this, I'm not going to, you know ...
Denson             : So you tried, your own kind of mind control where you focus on the appropriate things and try to set aside the things ...
Joseph Bishop: All of those things ... all of those things ...

 

Denson              :How many other women are there?
Bishop               :It's not that there's so many other women, it's just the two that were there, I remember one when I was in the Bishopric. [skimpy bathing suit story]

 

Bishop: I'm telling you my interpretation, that's how I was. No, that's fine. Where I was, I had this addiction. Took me a long time to figure out that I had an addiction. But that came and I find out, okay, I've got this addiction. I went to my friend who's a therapist, and we're in and we've figured it out. Okay, I've got this addiction. Okay, I must overcome that. Okay, I'm not going to do that anymore, I'm not going to do this anymore. And I'm going to be this, this, this, and this. That led me to this other life. That's what started to pull me out. But every time, almost every time, I'm not in that hole now, but every time, it was like I'm just doing all I can do to be better. I wasn't feeling like that's all I could do. That's the only option I sought for myself is okay, I can not do this anymore, I'm not going to do this, and I'll do this, this, this, and this. I will serve missions. I will do. I will go. I will, anything I can do, I stand the rest of my life. I've served five missions. Do you think that's all altruistic?

Thank you for your input/info.   I have seen this as example before and can only see a weak person trying to remember...and trying not to remember.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your input/info.   I have seen this as example before and can only see a weak person trying to remember...and trying not to remember.

My train of thought exactly. I feel Bishop felt extreme guilt and wanted to put that memory away for good, I don't think he could/can come to terms with having hurt McKenna like he has. And I think McKenna was so use to being abused that to her it wasn't as traumatizing as the abuse she suffered before Bishop. And she didn't understand the full term of what rape constituted. She's a pretty older woman, but she was a pretty young missionary, and Bishop couldn't resist her, especially seeing how she was abused and had had a baby beforehand. He probably thought she had a hand in it or was partially at fault, but I'm just rambling. 

[provoman]

52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your input/info.   I have seen this as example before and can only see a weak person trying to remember...and trying not to remember.

What do you think he told Elder Wells? 

Edited October 27, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

Thanks for posting that.

But her lawsuit is about "fraudulent concealment" - i.e. She is claiming The Church knew in 1978 or at least 1984 of Bishop's sexual predatory behaviour and did not warn her before she entered the MTC.

It seems that anything about Elder Asay is irrelevant until this can be established.  Even then, Denson has not said Elder Asay told her they were aware of Bishop's issues.  Once established, then it might be used as part of an ongoing concealment, but useless for the lawsuit until then except perhaps to impeach the leadership's credibility.

It seems like an impossible case to prove unless leadership was idiotic enough to have a file somewhere detailing they knew of accusations (which otherwise would require documentation of victims reporting assaults to leadership and it making it all the way to the top or documentation or testimony by Elder Wells that Bishop told him of assaults) AND documentation they believed the accusations (if Elder Wells says Bishop confessed to assaults to him, that likely would be enough I am thinking, but if not then if it was a he said/she said situation, then it becomes reasonable to have doubt about accusations) and went ahead and put him into vulnerable positions anyway.

Unless Bishop kept journals, he is likely a useless witness if he has any dementia issues even if his memory is intact because of the problem of how dementia patients respond to pressure to avoid conflict and cover up disability.  He can't be trusted based solely on that to give an accurate account.  Add to that if the accusations against him are correct, it means he has been lying about his behaviour his entire life to avoid condemnation and punishment, why assume he would be sufficiently honest now?  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I began by accepting her claims at face value. I continue to see Bishop as a predator and I think he targeted her in some way.  But after seeing the legal analysis here, I don’t think there is the necessary proof after decades. That along with her bizarre stunts and history of rape claims make me very skeptical in accepting everything she claims. 

I have a growing discomfort with these old claims that we are expected to accept without evidence. I am more concerned with the damage this is doing to the Metoo movement. I saw a poll where disbelief is growing and I think it is because of cases like this one. 

I think there is a point where old accusations need to give way to more recent ones where there is more evidence. It isn’t fair, but this is a learning curve. I hope what comes from this is that girls/women know they will be taken seriously and need to report immediately. That will be the victory. 

Likewise, I see Bishop as a predator and I don't see sufficient evidence to support Denson's last remaining claim.  This seems like one reason that we have statutes of limitations... it just becomes too difficult to get reliable evidence.

But I really don't think that Denson's case should be included in the list of claims that are damaging the MeToo movement.  Denson has the recording of Bishop admitting to and apologizing for inappropriate conduct.  She also has witnesses that have corroborated details of her story.  Her allegation isn't strong enough to win in court (mostly because of the passage of time) but it certainly is much stronger than some of the reports we've heard recently.

I wonder if there is a calendar of Elder Asay (or a calendar of his secretary) from the relevant time frame that could be subpoenaed to determine if Denson's name even appears there.  There is also the full report from BYU PD that hasn't been released - perhaps there is something there regarding the claim that the Church had some kind of knowledge prior to making Bishop the MTC pres.

[provoman]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Likewise, I see Bishop as a predator and I don't see sufficient evidence to support Denson's last remaining claim.  This seems like one reason that we have statutes of limitations... it just becomes too difficult to get reliable evidence.

But I really don't think that Denson's case should be included in the list of claims that are damaging the MeToo movement.  Denson has the recording of Bishop admitting to and apologizing for inappropriate conduct.  She also has witnesses that have corroborated details of her story.  Her allegation isn't strong enough to win in court (mostly because of the passage of time) but it certainly is much stronger than some of the reports we've heard recently.

I wonder if there is a calendar of Elder Asay (or a calendar of his secretary) from the relevant time frame that could be subpoenaed to determine if Denson's name even appears there.  There is also the full report from BYU PD that hasn't been released - perhaps there is something there regarding the claim that the Church had some kind of knowledge prior to making Bishop the MTC pres.

A very tempered and restrained response.

I just want to point out that even if the Church provided evidence that Asay met with Denson in 1987, it would show that Denson did met Asay, but does meeting Asay in 1987 show what was known in 1978 or 1984?

Denson has a difficult theory to show. She must show that the Church knew of behavior prior to Bishop being MTC President. Anything after 1984 is not relevant to what was known in 1978 or 1984. I believe she has stated Elder Asay was stoic during their conversation. But has Denson indicated that Asay made any statement indicating prior knowledge of Bishops behavior.

[Calm]

I think Denson damages the sense of the movements with her antics post Bishop interview, though the range of impact is probably limited. She has shifted from a sympathetic character imo to one who is arrogant, lying for her own ends quite easily thus destroying credibility, and who at times acts like the whole thing is some sort of game. 

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think Denson damages the sense of the movements with her antics post Bishop interview, though the range of impact is probably limited. She has shifted from a sympathetic character imo to one who is arrogant, lying for her own ends quite easily thus destroying credibility, and who at times acts like the whole thing is some sort of game. 

And how about the church leaders that let Bishop keep or give, callings that let him be in charge of unsuspecting missionaries? I think with Denson, we get what we see. And with certain leaders we are deceived. I guess my trust level has taken a nose dive when I see that the church has a past of hurting groups of people or individuals and then covering it up or changing policy. She may be hurting herself possibly when she is kicked to curb after losing the case, if that happens.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And how about the church leaders that let Bishop keep or give, callings that let him be in charge of unsuspecting missionaries? I think with Denson, we get what we see. And with certain leaders we are deceived. I like it when people are not trying to appear what they're not. I guess my trust level has taken a nose dive when over and over the church has a past of hurting groups of people and then covering or changing policy. She may be hurting herself possibly when she is kicked to curb after losing the case. And I blame her attorney as well.

Also...post antics have nothing to do with happened prior.  Some things are questionable..but doesn't take away what Bishop is guilty of...and not just Mckenna...but to others a long his path!

[Calm]

“And how about the church leaders that let Bishop keep or give, callings that let him be in charge of unsuspecting missionaries?”

You are assuming they knew when currently no solid evidence they did before 2010. 

[Calm]

“post antics have nothing to do with happened prior.“

But appearances and emotions affect how people view claims even if logically there is no connection.

Pictures of children being hurt will get more attention than pictures of 60 year olds even if the injury is identical. 

It may not be right, but logic often has little to do with responses to criminal accusations. 

[changed]

Just out of curiosity, what does it take to put an asterisk next to someone's name - indicating that they should not hold leadership callings, or callings with children?  In my case - I think the church knew, they knew because it ended his first temple marriage, they knew because he was going to church addiction recovery groups, and yet he was still called to leadership positions and called to work with children - year after year, child after child, calling after calling - horrendous.  We have another person in the stake presidency right now who was accused of abuse - I do not feel they should be serving in that kind of a leadership position.  I have another relative who works in law enforcement, they recently moved into a different ward - their old ward had registered sex offenders roaming the hallways unsupervised... anyone working with children or working in leadership positions should be given background checks... after this experience, I no longer believe "the spirit" is actually guiding callings etc.  I am happy that more attention is being brought to situations like this, and hope more will be done to ensure everyone is safe.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

A very tempered and restrained response.

I just want to point out that even if the Church provided evidence that Asay met with Denson in 1987, it would show that Denson did met Asay, but does meeting Asay in 1987 show what was known in 1978 or 1984?

Denson has a difficult theory to show. She must show that the Church knew of behavior prior to Bishop being MTC President. Anything after 1984 is not relevant to what was known in 1978 or 1984. I believe she has stated Elder Asay was stoic during their conversation. But has Denson indicated that Asay made any statement indicating prior knowledge of Bishops behavior.

You’re right.  I was confusing the timeline.  The Asay interview isn’t relevant to her remaining claim.  It’s the Wells/Bishop interview. 

Perhaps there is still something relevant in the BYU PD report. But the chances seem slim. 

I just don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere unless the Church decides to cooperate with Denson   Which also seem to have an extremely slim probability

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

“And how about the church leaders that let Bishop keep or give, callings that let him be in charge of unsuspecting missionaries?”

You are assuming they knew when currently no solid evidence they did before 2010. 

Bishop told McKenna he had confessed his sins to Elder Wells I thought. To me, I thought he confessed it all, and then went on to having those callings that involved young women or sister missionaries. And, BTW, my post you quoted I had gone in and edited so much, couldn't write a coherant post for some reason. Just saw it now and it doesn't make a lot of sense. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Bishop told McKenna he had confessed his sins to Elder Wells I thought. To me, I thought he confessed it all, and then went on to having those callings that involved young women or sister missionaries. And, BTW, my post you quoted I had gone in and edited so much, couldn't write a coherant post for some reason. Just saw it now and it doesn't make a lot of sense. 

The nature of those "sins" is unknown.  We don't know what he did that, in his view, merited confession.

So when you say that "he confessed it all," we don't know what "it all" means.  We lack context and proportion.

And I don't think we'll ever know.  

Thanks, 

Smac

Edited October 28, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

Tacenda, If Bishop was the liar that he would have had to been to be the type of predator you appear to think he was, why do you think he would suddenly be honest to Denson instead of yet again trying to make himself look good and others more responsible than him by claiming he had confessed, etc.?  If he was a predator, his evidence is useless against the Church on its own, imo, as it puts everything he said to Denson into a context of him trying to avoid accountability.

If he was not a predator and was instead a man apparently obsessed with impurity of his own thoughts as his son claimed and thus his sins confessed were actually two women acting inappropriately in public when he was in the company of other men and did nothing but look and one vague case from when he himself was a young missionary, then that confession doesn't sound like it had any red flags of a predator.

Or he may have been a old man with dementia trying to avoid conflict and saying what he thought she wanted to hear at least some of the time, which makes what he said useless as evidence because on its own you cannot separate truth from imagination because he is the only reference.

I don't see any scenario where one can trust Bishop's comments to Denson to establish anything solid.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, If Bishop was the liar that he would have had to been to be the type of predator you appear to think he was, why do you think he would suddenly be honest to Denson instead of yet again trying to make himself look good and others more responsible than him by claiming he had confessed, etc.?  If he was a predator, his evidence is useless against the Church on its own, imo, as it puts everything he said to Denson into a context of him trying to avoid accountability.

If he was not a predator and was instead a man apparently obsessed with impurity of his own thoughts as his son claimed and thus his sins confessed were actually two women acting inappropriately in public when he was in the company of other men and did nothing but look and one vague case from when he himself was a young missionary, then that confession doesn't sound like it had any red flags of a predator.

Or he may have been a old man with dementia trying to avoid conflict and saying what he thought she wanted to hear at least some of the time, which makes what he said useless as evidence because on its own you cannot separate truth from imagination because he is the only reference.

I don't see any scenario where one can trust Bishop's comments to Denson to establish anything solid.

Do you think he was still just trying to avoid conflict when he made a similar confession to the BYU PD?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you think he was still just trying to avoid conflict when he made a similar confession to the BYU PD?

Good point, I wonder how Consig is doing on getting the full tape of that ? 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you think he was still just trying to avoid conflict when he made a similar confession to the BYU PD?

Don't have the transcript so couldn't guess.  It is certainly possible as false confessions to avoid conflict from healthy, rational people are not uncommon as have been referenced in this thread or another.  And if he had dementia, once he comes up with something, he may actually believe it is true (speaking from experience) and repeat it in the future.

I trust that confession more though than the Denson interview.  There was nothing Denson could do to him if he lied really and a lot of benefit for him if he did and it worked; if he lied to the police and they confirmed it was a lie, that could get him into significant trouble.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Calm

[Rain]

This thread seems to come down to two things. 1. People say they believe Denson, who believe Bishop was a predator,  and that the church knew. 2. People who say Bishop might be a predator, that Denson's words are unreliable and that there is no way to know if the church knew or not with the info we, the members of this board, have. So we keep going back and forth for pages and pages of "Bishop and the church are guilty" and "we don't have enough info to know". 

I fall in with group 2. At this point I don't want to use more time on the thread. If you are in group 2 and continue here and more info actually comes to light I would appreciate it if you would let me know please.

[provoman]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good point, I wonder how Consig is doing on getting the full tape of that ? 

I think he is waiting for the Utah Supreme Court to rule on a separate case - that he is not part of - that will determine if BYU PD should obliged to follow GRAMA. 

 

As to Bishop's confession to Elder Wells, it is not known what was confessed. Bishops mentions 2 incidents that occurred prior to his confession to Wells:

1. A female in Argentina when when he was a young missionary; he says he did not tell his mission president everything.

2. A woman wearing a skimpy bathing bathing suit...he provides no additional detail.

So there is not much there to say he confessed to sexually abusive behavior.

Did he detail those incidents to Elder Wells?

He also tells Denson that he never sought treatment, but rather he determined to fix himself and served as much as he could in an attempt to fix himself.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

This thread seems to come down to two things. 1. People say they believe Denson, who believe Bishop was a predator,  and that the church knew. 2. People who say Bishop might be a predator, that Denson's words are unreliable and that there is no way to know if the church knew or not with the info we, the members of this board, have. So we keep going back and forth for pages and pages of "Bishop and the church are guilty" and "we don't have enough info to know". 

I fall in with group 2. At this point I don't want to use more time on the thread. If you are in group 2 and continue here and more info actually comes to light I would appreciate it if you would let me know please.

There is a third group... or is it just me?

I believe Denson, I think Bishop is a predator, but I suspect that the Church did NOT know.