Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[lostindc]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He's affiliated with McKenna Denson and Sam Young, and so has been referenced in that context.

In contrast, you have now devoted several threads specifically about me.  You are trying to personalize this thread.  Let's not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not "threads," only posts, and the majority of my posts are responses to your post.  You're crying for help by making this post above, because you want this thread closed.  I get that.  I offer you this, I play on your homecourt, this board.  This board was my home court at one point too, but issues arose.  I don't have any ill will towards anyone, and when I discuss your posts, I am asking if you think your points are good.  I will erase any post you feel offended you. 

I am sure you believe that your viewpoint is more valid than mine.  I guess that's up to the readers.  Again, I will erase anything you feel offends you.  Tell me the post and I will delete.

Edited September 19, 2018 by lostindc

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Various news organizations have reported on the incidents detailed in the dossier.  Do you think those news organizations care so little about maintaining their credibility that they are willing to rely less on information contained in such official records as police reports (not to mention the prospect that officials who write police reports care so little about their credibility) and more on "rumour, gossip, and allegation"?

He wouldn't have access to official records such as police reports unless he were representing someone who is being prosecuted or unless, somehow, such reports were relevant to the case of someone he were representing in a civiI proceeding.  Otherwise, he's limited to the same sources of information to which anyone else has access.  You can continue to assert that he has, sans evidence, made (therefore unfounded) allegations against Ms. Denson if you wish.  However, it would seem that your problem with him is not that he doesn't have evidence to back up his claims, but, rather, that he interprets that evidence differently than you do.  

I see.  So, on the one hand, it seems that you feel completely at ease dismissing serious questions about Ms. Denson's credibility as mere "victim shaming" when, in a podcast, she herself has bragged about her ability as a liar, nonetheless, to win the credibility of others, on the one hand while, on the other hand, you also feel completely at ease without any evidence whatsoever dismissing Ron Leavitt as a liar.  Gotcha.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

Generally, prior criminal history of a witness or of a victim may or may not be admissible, depending upon the jurisdiction and on the purpose for which the information is sought to be used.  However, prior acts involving dishonesty  are nearly always relevant in determining a person's credibility in proceedings in a court of law. 

When McLenna was publicly hounded on face book,  she acknowledged she had a criminal record for shoplifting and a case was going through presently involving an ex partner.

I think many news organisations do not wish to victim blame in cases such as these.  Again, If she told Leavitt and subsequently was interviewed by Carlos Asay, her actions criminal or not, after this, would have no bearing on the case imho. They aren't relevant. What they are, if any are true, and McKenna said most are not,  are symptomatic of someone who has been abused and treated terribly by the very men she should have been able to trust. Step-father, Joseph Bishop and a worthy Mormon ex husband who owed $1000's in child support. 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Abulafia

[smac97]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

Quote

He's affiliated with McKenna Denson and Sam Young, and so has been referenced in that context.

In contrast, you have now devoted several threads specifically about me.  You are trying to personalize this thread.  Let's not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not "threads," only posts, and the majority of my posts are responses to your post.  

Your recent spate of posts has been about me, not the topic.

Quote

You're crying for help by making this post above, because you want this thread closed.  

I'm asking you to stop trying to personalize this thread.  It's against the board rules.

I don't want this thread closed.

Quote

I get that.  

No, you don't.

Quote

I offer you this, I play on your homecourt, this board.  This board was my home court at one point too, but issues arose.  I don't have any ill will towards anyone, and when I discuss your posts, I am asking if you think your points are good.  I will erase any post you feel offended you. 

I'm asking that you stop trying to personalize this thread.  Let's discuss the topic.

Quote

I am sure you believe that your viewpoint is more valid than mine.  

I don't know what your "viewpoint" is.  I don't know your experience with the Church, or your efforts to study it.  I simply don't know you, so I won't presume to pass some sort of moral judgment on you.  My interactions with you have been limited to what you post here, that's all.  You seem generally hostile to our religion, but that's more of a passing impression. People hostile to or critical of our beliefs come and go on this board.  All the time.  It's hard to keep track of individuals/pseudonyms, so I don't really try.  I just respond to the substance of what is posted, or try to.

One of the nice things about this board is that it forces me to consistently re-examine what I believe and why.  This means I make constant course corrections and modifications to my viewpoints.  My perspective on the Church has been heavily refined by my years on this board.  I freely admit that I have partiality in favor of the Church.  I have a lot of experience with it.  I've grown up in it.  It's an integral part of my daily life.  I have been privy to its inner workings.  I served a mission for it and have spent many years in high council and bishopric callings.  I have a brother who works for the Church and reports directly to the presiding bishopric, and he has shared many interesting insights about the Church.  My father has had extensive experience in working with various general authorities, and he has shared many interesting insights about the Church.  .  I have spent a lot of time researching and reading and studying and discussing and debating the Church, its doctrines and practices, including controversial issues and issues for which we have little data and/or revealed light and knowledge.  Most importantly, I have had many significant spiritual experiences as pertaining to the truth claims of the Church, including a singular one that became a defining moment in my life.

I recite these things not to brag, but to explain that my perspective on the Church is not borne of ignorance or blind faith or naiveté, but of experience and study and discussion and debate and a protracted effort to understand.  And I have come to the conclusion that the Church is overwhelmingly good.  It is what it claims to be.  It is trying to do a great work, and it is succeeding in many, many ways.  It has problems to work out, to be sure, but the Church is aware of these and is working on many/most of them.

Quote

I guess that's up to the readers.  Again, I will erase anything you feel offends you.  Tell me the post and I will delete.

No need to delete.  Just stop trying to personalize this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I think many news organisations do not wish to victim blame in cases such as these. 

Acknowledging her past misconduct is not "victim blam[ing]."

Nobody has suggested that Ms. Denson is in any way to be blamed for Joseph Bishop's apparent misconduct.  Nobody.

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Again, If she told Leavitt and subsequently was interviewed by Carlos Asay, her actions criminal or not, after this, would have no bearing on the case imho. They aren't relevant.

Yes, they are relevant.  Her legal claims are based mostly on her personal credibility.  Her personal credibility is therefore very relevant to evaluating the merits of her claims.

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

What they are, if any are true, and McKenna said most are not,  are symptomatic of someone who has been abused and treated terribly by the very men she should have been able to trust. Step-father, Joseph Bishop and a worthy Mormon ex husband who owed $1000 in child support. 

They are also symptomatic of someone who has a history of using deceit and lies for financial gain.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay. I think it is victim shaming, her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming.  I don't have access to any criminal background records so I have little idea as to whether the *dossier* compiled on McKenna is rumour, gossip, allegation and whether she was found innocent or guilty in a court of law. 

I think most of what we are saying in this thread is just our opinions, so that's fine if that's yours.  I wanted to outline why I personally didn't find it reasonable.

But, if the standard you are trying to set is the we cannot talk about any allegations or things discussed by the police unless they have been proven true, then that seems to set a huge double standard in regards to what you have said about Bishop and the church.

Quote

Smac continues to list why he believes she is not a credible character without links to sources and court decisions.

Smac has provided a lot of sources.

Quote

I do feel uncomfortable  with what I believe to be victim shaming, and I believe we will find that a meeting with Asay did occur, and that Leavitt was lying for some unfathomable  reason.

We might.  Right now, there is no information to prove either possibility.  All we have is the word of two people.  

Quote

If all this occurred before any criminal activity McKenna may or may not have engaged in, then her criminal activity is irrelevant imho.

In a case that is largely dependent upon one person's credibility, I don't know how anyone can argue that whether or not the person is credible is irrelevant, regardless of when the activity occurred.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

You need to understand that when I respond to you, it's only for others to see that some members will do what you're doing to defend the Church no matter the situation, and this includes implementing rhetorical devices.  I am using you as an example, for lurkers, to get a chance to see what it's like to discuss very serious issues with some LDS members, only to have games played and messengers attacked.  I hope you get that.  I hope you understand that these posts you make will be viewed years from now.  I hope you're proud of these posts and you feel like you approached the situation of one-on-one worthiness interviews with integrity and your eye on keeping the youth safe.

I don't always agree with Smac or his posting style, but I almost always read his posts because I've learned over the years that I can trust him to recount things accurately, even if i disagree with his conclusions.  I don't think he has anything to fear from lurkers.   

This weird post trying to passively/aggressively call into question his integrity and morality is really odd though.

[Abulafia]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Acknowledging her past misconduct is not "victim blam[ing]."

Nobody has suggested that Ms. Denson is in any way to be blamed for Joseph Bishop's apparent misconduct.  Nobody.

Yes, they are relevant.  Her legal claims are based mostly on her personal credibility.  Her personal credibility is therefore very relevant to evaluating the merits of her claims.

They are also symptomatic of someone who has a history of using deceit and lies for financial gain.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, Joseph Smith had a criminal record, do you regard his credibility as poorly? If not, then your bias may be trickling in. Just a thought.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

When McLenna was publicly hounded on face book,  she acknowledged she had a criminal record for shoplifting and a case was going through presently involving an ex partner.

As has been pointed out, she has a record of doing more than just that.

Whether she wants to "acknowledge" it or not, it doesn't change the fact that she also has a record which involves lying about being physically assaulted in order to file a lawsuit against her employer to make money.

And don't forget about the time where she "claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake -- only for police, doctors and psychologists to say that she did it intentionally."

I'm sorry, but the woman has a history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money which, in my opinion, seems to be pretty relevant when it comes to judging her credibility. 

I mean, if she's willing to make up crazy stuff with absolutely no basis in reality for a payout, do you think she might be capable of exaggerating an actual event for a payout as well? 

 

Quote

What they are, if any are true, and McKenna said most are not,  are symptomatic of someone who has been abused and treated terribly by the very men she should have been able to trust. Step-father, Joseph Bishop and a worthy Mormon ex husband who owed $1000's in child support. 

I agree that McKenna has a long, troubled history. I believe she has some real problems.

Here's the thing though: it's the troubled woman that exists today who is the one making these claims. You get that, right?

Can you concede that it's at least possible that she might be exaggerating things a bit in order gain attention and/or money just like she has before?

 

[Calm]

 

Quote

 

Again, If she told Leavitt and subsequently was interviewed by Carlos Asay, her actions criminal or not, after this, would have no bearing on the case imho. They aren't relevant.

If there is proof found that she told Leavitt, was interviewed by Asay, and that her claims against Bishop were valid (the possibility currently exists she lied from the beginning just as the possibility exists that Leavitt lied and the Church reps lied), her behaviour after the fact will become irrelevant, imo.

But until there is proof of those three things, all the public currently has to go on are the credibility of Leavitt and Denson and Church leadership and therefore her post1987 behaviour is currently relevant because what can currently be judged as far as Bishop's behaviour in the past and the meetings is primarily what she is publicly saying in the here and now.

Add-on:  Leavitt, Bishop, and Church leadership's behaviour in terms of credibility issues is also relevant, but I haven't heard anything about Leavitt, limited info on Bishop has been widely discussed, and Church leadership....how to determine credibility has also been widely discussed, info is also limited and there has been tons of discussion about whether that is appropriate or not.  No one, as far as .I can tell, has been exempted from discussion of public info.  Everyone has been dissected, imo.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't always agree with Smac or his posting style, but I almost always read his posts because I've learned over the years that I can trust him to recount things accurately, even if i disagree with his conclusions.  I don't think he has anything to fear from lurkers.   

This weird post trying to passively/aggressively call into question his integrity and morality is really odd though.

I don't know Smac, I can't really attribute anything to a real person, only a message board name.  If I say anything that upsets anyone, I can erase.  I don't want to deter from the discussion.  I am not here to bring down any poster.  I've been a member of this board for around a decade, lurker previously, and a member of quite a few other LDS oriented boards.  I know many people in real life from these boards, and I am quite a nice person.  So if my delivery sucked in a couple posts, let me know and I will immediately delete.  Thx.

[Abulafia]

Amulek. I assume all this knowledge of razor blades etc comes from the dossier compiled by the church lawyers and released to the media with the specific purpose of discrediting McKenna. Other than allusions to police reports, I sincerely can't make head nor tail of what they are.  Was she pronounced guilty of fraud? Are the police reports from her and are their opinion? How do police reports get into the public domain like this? It's all allegation and rumour to me, unless she has been pronounced guilty in a court of law. Has she?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

It's all allegation and rumour to me, unless she has been pronounced guilty in a court of law.

My irony meter was just tripped again.

[Abulafia]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

My irony meter was just tripped again.

Well, except we have Bishop on tape

1. Admitting he was a sexual predator 

2. Acknowledging he was trying to titilate young sister missionaries

3. Admitting he molested another sister missionary

A police report where he

3. Admits to asking a sister missionary to show him her breasts

He admits them Hamba. I mean I guess you could argue he is senile but it appears that 6 other victims have now come forward, possibly 7. And one of those victims is from my home stake here in the UK. So there are corroborating claims of sexual impropriety. 

Your irony meter should be just fine.

[Abulafia]

McKenna responded by saying some of the allegations were true. Most were not. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek. I assume all this knowledge of razor blades etc comes from the dossier compiled by the church lawyers and released to the media with the specific purpose of discrediting McKenna.

To be clear, it was Bishop’s son who leaked the information to the media, not the church’s lawyers. 

But yes, the attorneys representing the church performed a background investigation on McKenna Denson just like they would with any other plaintiff bringing suit against the church. That information would then potentially be used at trial to question her credibility as a witness. That’s kind of what lawyers are paid (and have a duty) to do. 

I mean, if someone were to accuse you of rape, would you want your lawyer to just uncritically accept that as the truth?

 

Quote

Other than allusions to police reports, I sincerely can't make head nor tail of what they are.

What what are? Police reports? Oh, they are these things that police officers fill out when they are investigating a crime. I'm sure you have something similar over there in the UK.   

 

Quote

Was she pronounced guilty of fraud?

I don’t know if she was ever formally prosecuted for fraud – or even if “fraud” would have been the right charge. 

We do know, however, that she “confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information” to law enforcement. 

That's kind of a salient point when it comes to determining whether or not she has bad character with respect to truthfulness. 

 

Quote

Are the police reports from her and are their opinion?

Huh? Police reports are from police, and they usually just summarize the facts gathered during an investigation. They aren’t opinion pieces.

 

Quote

How do police reports get into the public domain like this?

Police reports are part of the public record. Anybody can look them up if they are so inclined. 

 

Quote

It's all allegation and rumour to me, unless she has been pronounced guilty in a court of law. Has she?

A police report is an official government document. It isn’t just “allegation and rumour.”

Trying to waive it away by shifting the goal posts won’t work. 

 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, Joseph Smith had a criminal record, do you regard his credibility as poorly? If not, then your bias may be trickling in. Just a thought.

I do believe he lied to people and told them their treasure sunk down into the earth. And was even charged in a court of law for money digging. I guess we shouldn't believe a word he said now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I do believe he lied to people and told them their treasure sunk down into the earth. And was even charged in a court of law for money digging. I guess we shouldn't believe a word he said now. 

CFR that Joseph was charged in a court "for money digging."

 

[Abulafia]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that Joseph was charged in a court "for money digging."

 

Scott, are you seriously suggesting you don't know about Joseph's criminal record? 1826 onwards?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Scott, are you seriously suggesting you don't know about Joseph's criminal record? 1826 onwards?

I'm calling for documentation that Joseph was charged in court "for money digging."

And the CFR is to Tacenda, not you, although you are welcome to weigh in.

 

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I've numbered your responses with my comments bolded in Italics. 

 

 

1.To be clear, it was Bishop’s son who leaked the information to the media, not the church’s lawyers.

Well, hmm..you really think he released the information completely independently? I don't. 

 

2.But yes, the attorneys representing the church performed a background investigation on McKenna Denson just like they would with any other plaintiff bringing suit against the church. That information would then potentially be used at trial to question her credibility as a witness. That’s kind of what lawyers are paid (and have a duty) to do. 

Yet they do not have the investigative tools to examine Bishop's background as the alleged perpetrator?

3.I mean, if someone were to accuse you of rape, would you want your lawyer to just uncritically accept that as the truth?

No, but I would expect to be asked if there are other victims. In Bishop's case, there are 6 possibly 7.

 

4.What what are? Police reports? Oh, they are these things that police officers fill out when they are investigating a crime. I'm sure you have something similar over there in the UK.   

In the case for which I served as juror, it came to court because it was considered there was enough evidence to convict. Did any of these cases ever end up in court where a pronouncement of innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt could be pronounced?

And by the way, the police felt there was enough evidence to convict Bishop on the basis of the evidence they had in their possession,  but for the statute of limitations.

 

 

5.I don’t know if she was ever formally prosecuted for fraud – or even if “fraud” would have been the right charge. 

Well thank you. That's a start.

6.We do know, however, that she “confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information” to law enforcement. 

That's kind of a salient point when it comes to determining whether or not she has bad character with respect to truthfulness. 

That depends on whether any criminal history is relevant. CFR on confessing to law enforcement "misleading and incomplete information". In what case, and regarding what?

 

7.Huh? Police reports are from police, and they usually just summarize the facts gathered during an investigation. They aren’t opinion pieces.

Well, the police reports that I had access to as a juror were statements by witnesses, accused and accusors, pertaining to a particular crime. It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt. 

 

8.Police reports are part of the public record. Anybody can look them up if they are so inclined. 

I would be interested in the link. I know the police dept at BYU won't release files on Bishop. So that can't be universally true.

 

9.A police report is an official government document. It isn’t just “allegation and rumour.”

But it takes a court to judge innocence or guilt. Did she admit guilt?

10.Trying to waive it away by shifting the goal posts won’t work.

I'm really not. I would like more information on the nature of the allegations.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Abulafia
Minor amendment

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that Joseph was charged in a court "for money digging."

 

Why was he thrown in jail so often? It wasn't because he started a religion. That is the old narrative. But here is the Fair Mormon stance on it. But it was evident to me that he was arrested for it. https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith  And the Kirtland Bank situation doesn't sound very good. I do believe Joseph Smith was a very imperfect man. Such as McKenna an imperfect woman, so shall we discount every thing she says?

Edited September 20, 2018 by Tacenda

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

 

CFR "In Bishop's case, there are 6 possibly 7." 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Well, hmm..you really think he released the information completely independently? I don't. 

Is there anything that supports this other than gossip and rumor and allegation?

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why was he thrown in jail so often? It wasn't because he started a religion. That is the old narrative. But here is the Fair Mormon stance on it. But it was evident to me that he was arrested for it. https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith  And the Kirtland Bank situation doesn't sound very good. I do believe Joseph Smith was a very imperfect man. Such as McKenna an imperfect woman, so shall we discount every thing she says?

This seems like a straw man.  No one is saying that because McKenna is imperfect we should discount everything that she has said.  McKenna's case relies almost completely upon her credibility so investigating her credibility is the reasonable thing to do.  

It's fair to investigate JS's credibility as well.  

But the 'trial of 1826' that you linked to doesn't seem to do that.  He was arrested for being a 'vagrant' or a 'disorderly person and imposter' (depending on which account is to be believed).  That doesn't really hurt his credibility any, not from a believer's point of view.

Critics have claimed that “The reason the 1826 trial is so devastating to the claims of Mormonism is that it links Joseph Smith to the occult.”  That doesn't really hurt his credulity either.  Christianity in general can easily be linked to the occult too.  It's just a matter of perspective.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

1.To be clear, it was Bishop’s son who leaked the information to the media, not the church’s lawyers.

Well, hmm..you really think he released the information completely independently? I don't. 

Of course you don’t – though I can’t say I’m surprised. Assuming the worst of the church and its agents has been what you have been relentlessly doing this entire time. Your opinion here is kind of a microcosm of how you view this entire case.

Even though you have no evidence whatsoever to indicate the church’s lawyers were involved with leaking information to the media, you assume that they were involved. Somehow. Because…why, exactly?

I mean, does the church’s legal team have a history of leaking this kind of information to the press in high profile cases? So far as I am aware they do not. Can you find even one case remotely similar to this one, where they have done so? It seems then, at least to me, that it would be strange for them to suddenly start doing so now.

You know what sounds more plausible to me? That an angry / frustrated son was getting tired of seeing his aged father being publicly branded a rapist in a high profile / high dollar lawsuit by a woman who he knows has a history of lying for attention and/or money and he decided to do something about it. 

So, to combat that narrative, he released research on McKenna to the media hoping it would help his father, but the move totally blew up in his face. And, let's be honest, anyone other than someone whose emotion was clouding his judgement could have predicted that such a move would backfire.

Yet you believe that the church’s lawyers were somehow involved in publishing it – even though doing so would obviously hurt their client? Sorry, not buying it.

  

Quote

2.But yes, the attorneys representing the church performed a background investigation on McKenna Denson just like they would with any other plaintiff bringing suit against the church. That information would then potentially be used at trial to question her credibility as a witness. That’s kind of what lawyers are paid (and have a duty) to do. 

Yet they do not have the investigative tools to examine Bishop's background as the alleged perpetrator?

What makes you think that they haven’t?

 

Quote

3.I mean, if someone were to accuse you of rape, would you want your lawyer to just uncritically accept that as the truth?

No, but I would expect to be asked if there are other victims. In Bishop's case, there are 6 possibly 7.

Allegedly. And we don’t know anything about any of those other cases. For example, do any of those cases involve accusations of sexual assault?

The church has acknowledged that there has been one other woman who has accused Joseph Bishop of sexual misconduct. My personal opinion is that there were likely additional victims, but we don’t have any details about any of those cases so I’ve got no idea of what those women were victims of.

 

Quote

4.What what are? Police reports? Oh, they are these things that police officers fill out when they are investigating a crime. I'm sure you have something similar over there in the UK.   

In the case for which I served as juror, it came to court because it was considered there was enough evidence to convict. Did any of these cases ever end up in court where a pronouncement of innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt could be pronounced?

In US courts, there is no such thing as a "pronouncement of innocence." You are presumed innocent until you have been proven guilty. But to answer your question directly, no, I do not know what crimes McKenna Denson has been convicted of during her lifetime.

But that’s really beside the point. She is on the record as having confessed to lying to the police. A confessed liar is still a liar – regardless of whether or not they have actually been sued over it.

 

Quote

And by the way, the police felt there was enough evidence to convict Bishop on the basis of the evidence they had in their possession,  but for the statute of limitations.

Technically it was a prosecutor, not the police, who said that he would have charged Bishop with a crime. And you’ll note that he never mentioned what crime that would have been. You recognize what he is doing is largely a political move, right?   

 

Quote

5.I don’t know if she was ever formally prosecuted for fraud – or even if “fraud” would have been the right charge. 

Well thank you. That's a start.

You’re welcome. I guess.

 

Quote

6.We do know, however, that she “confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information” to law enforcement. 

That's kind of a salient point when it comes to determining whether or not she has bad character with respect to truthfulness. 

That depends on whether any criminal history is relevant.

Yes, criminal history can definitely be relevant.

For a quick primer, see this Wikipedia article on witness impeachment. I think you’ll find it helpful.

 

Quote

CFR on confessing to law enforcement "misleading and incomplete information". In what case, and regarding what?

This was discussed previously. The case was the one where she made a false claim of physical assault in an effort to sue her employer for not providing adequate security.

Here’s the source, and here’s the relevant quote, since you said you had trouble accessing the link previously (emphasis added):

Quote

The [Bishop] family sent Fox 13 documents that list more than a half a dozen times the accuser claimed she was sexually or physically assaulted.

One of those incidents was in 1999, where the woman claimed she was assaulted in a parking lot by two men, then asserted legal claims against her place of work for failing to have proper security.

Police reports show the case was unfounded and states, "the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

 

 

Quote

7.Huh? Police reports are from police, and they usually just summarize the facts gathered during an investigation. They aren’t opinion pieces.

Well, the police reports that I had access to as a juror were statements by witnesses, accused and accusors, pertaining to a particular crime. It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt. 

Again, evidence of guilt in a previously adjudicated crime isn’t the standard we're talking about here. I know why you want that to be the standard, but that's not how things work. Her public comments to the police and others can all be used to impeach her credibility. 

  

Quote

8.Police reports are part of the public record. Anybody can look them up if they are so inclined. 

I would be interested in the link. I know the police dept at BYU won't release files on Bishop. So that can't be universally true.

They are part of the public record in that they are available to the public – not that they are all freely available online. If I thought that obtaining one or more of them would change your opinion in any meaningful way, I might make an effort to try and hunt them down. But, to be honest, I really don’t have the desire to take on the expense of obtaining documents that you are just going to dismiss out of hand to begin with.  

 

Quote

9.A police report is an official government document. It isn’t just “allegation and rumour.”

But it takes a court to judge innocence or guilt. Did she admit guilt?

On at least one occasion, yes. According to the police report quoted previously, she “has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information” to law enforcement.

 

Quote

10.Trying to waive it away by shifting the goal posts won’t work.

I'm really not. I would like more information on the nature of the allegations.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  

I think you are willfully trying to ignore every piece of evidence that paints Denson in a negative light.

You are welcome to do that, of course, but you can’t do so without showing how biased you are.

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Amulek
Edit for spacing. Also spelling.