Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

Abuse has to be treated differently because there are victims whose wounds may never fully heal. I would place the protection of potential victims above the rights of the abuser.

While Jesus did save the adulterous woman, he also spake these words.

 

Abuse is indeed serious sin that can cause tremendous and enduring pain and suffering, but so do many other sins. Victims and repentant offenders can find peace and healing through the atonement of Christ. Elder Packer powerfully addressed this:

Quote

But sometimes you cannot give back what you have taken because you don’t have it to give. If you have caused others to suffer unbearably --defiled someone’s virtue, for example --it is not within your power to give it back.
There are times you cannot mend that which you have broken. Perhaps the offense was long ago, or the injured refused your penance. Perhaps the damage was so severe that you cannot fix it no matter how desperately you want to.
Your repentance cannot be accepted unless there is a restitution. If you cannot undo what you have done, you are trapped. It is easy to understand how helpless and hopeless you then feel and why you might want to give up, just as Alma did.
The thought that rescued Alma, when he acted upon it, is this: Restoring what you cannot restore, healing the wound you cannot heal, fixing that which you broke and you cannot fix is the very purpose of the atonement of Christ.
When your desire is firm and you are willing to pay the “uttermost farthing,” the law of restitution is suspended. Your obligation is transferred to the Lord. He will settle your accounts.
I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

How all can be repaired, we do not know. It may not all be accomplished in this life. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil.
This knowledge should be as comforting to the innocent as it is to the guilty.....

The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness
Boyd K. Packer

I have a good friend who was estranged from her abusive father for most of her life, but found great peace when she went to see him on his death bed and forgave him for what he had done. He, too, was able to be at peace.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Abulafia]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

You do realize she accused two of his sons of being sexual predators as well?  Her claim is Bishop admitted it to her in the transcript, but while he talked about two of his sons, there is nothing even approaching saying they have any morality issues.  It is a complete fabrication on her part.

Why should we assume she speaks the truth even when there is obvious evidence she does not? (Serious question, not a challenge)

I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement on that. 

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Did not want to continue that topic in this thread. But you asked. I will do my best. I am assuming from your remarks that you are pretty familiar with the tale. I can provide citaitions though if you CFR me.

Peter Bridgeman swears out a warrant against Joseph Smith.

Constable De Zeng serves the warrant on Joseph. His bill is for $1.25 which includes 19c for serving the warrant and his travel. Travel was only paid one way. That would have him traveling about eighteen miles. At 6c per mile and eighteen miles, that would add up to $1.27 total. Joseph was probably at the home of Isaac Hale when he was arrested as it was about that eighteen mile distance from Bainbridge while Josiah Stowell’s farm was about three miles from town.

De Zeng brings Joseph to town to appear before a magistrate, Neely, as it turns out. Here Joseph would have had to post bail or be committed to gaol until his trial or examination could be held.

The account by Charles Marshall published in Fraser’s Magazine in 1873 has an itemized list of costs for Justice Neely. In that list is one for a 19c mittimus. Just one. I have not been able to determine if there was a jail in South Bainbridge at the time, but that really does not matter. If there was a jail that is where Joseph would have most probably been held, if he had been convicted. If no jail, he would have had to be held elsewhere. Norwich, the county seat and site of the Chenango County jail is a bit over twenty miles away. Oxford is a bit over fifteen miles away. Whatever the case, De Zeng was not taking Joseph to a local jail. He was taking him to one sixteen miles away.

Most speculations that I have read argue that Joseph’s trial was held the next day after his arrest. Dan Vogel has argued that such probably was not the case as Neely’s record notes a date of March 20 for the start of the trial. That was on a Monday and Sunday apprehensions were prohibited except in some felony cases. Moreover, Constable De Zeng also bills the county for subpoenaing 12 witnesses and travel as well as noticing two justices. He could not have been attending to Joseph during those activities. The most logical conclusion is that Joseph was being held in a jail during that period of time.

Whatever the outcome, Neely’s itemized list of costs do not list a thirty seven and one half cent charge for drawing a conviction. As already noted, there is only one charge for a mittimus. Neely would also have needed to issue a second mittimus to have Joseph committed for any sentence, which sentence is not recorded.

According to the “leg bail” theory Joseph was “designedly” allowed to escape with the understanding that Joseph would get out of town. Yet, Dr. Purple says that Joseph hung around for a few more weeks. Then less than a year later Joseph was standing before another Justice of the Peace in South Bainbridge getting married to Emma.

Of course, you do not have to be persuaded by this. You are free to believe as you wish. I do believe that my scenario is a bit more realistic than the leg bail idea.

Glenn

Thankyou. In your opinion can the JP declare guilt. He can according to the link I provided. Fair suggested the JP couldn't. 

[Calm]

Quote

not one of those claims was ever prosecuted.

How do you know this?  In the wiki, someone miswrote it as None of the wiki articles linked to support this claim.

It wasn't the most accurate article I have seen, it states Pleasant Grove Police went to her home on a routine call for emergency assistance.  The Church called it in because she was threatening to kill Bishop with a gun by her own report and the Police.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement on that. 

You can listen to the audio where she makes the claim right after being taken from the pulpit and than go read in the transcript (just search on the term "son" or "predator") and see if Bishop says anything approaching it.  It will take maybe 15 or 20 minutes to confirm or debunk.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

 

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Pps. McKenna's life. might have been a lot easier had her currently worthy and active ex husband paid child maintenance.

Do you have court documents proving her husband didn't pay maintenance or is it simply her claim?

[Abulafia]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

That's a much more charitable characterization than I would have given.

Mine would have invariably included at least one reference to the logical fallacy of false equivalency. 

 

Scott is not referring to me here.    I wrote quite clearly with no further detail..

 

"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"

That's all I wrote. I apologise. I felt it was relevant. It's a rusty point. 

[Abulafia]

For me, these are the key arguments.

1.Mormonleaks made public the audio of McKenna's interview with Bishop without her permission. But with her support after the fact.

2.In retaliation,  with or without the encouragement of church lawyers, Joseph Bishop's son made available to the media a dossier on McKenna's brushes with the law, including (her) false accusations on various matters that were never prosecuted and which she retracted. This was done in a blatant attempt to discredit and gaslight her.

3. What this says to anyone who may have been raped or abused (whether McKenna is exaggerating or not), is

If you have a record we will come after you. You'd better be darned near perfect.  Yet as a victim of childhood sexual assault, McKenna and others like her are more likely to have complex backgrounds. Backgrounds that include an increased likelihood of further rape,  drugs, depression, and so on. 

4. If McKenna told Leavitt and if Leavitt organised an interview with Asay, and if she described the assault without calling it rape, then what ever she did after is irrelevant.  

And I do agree with Happy JW that this is flogging a dead horse.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Abulafia

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement on that. 

Lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from passing judgment against various other people on the thread [COUGH-COUGH]Ron-Leavitt-and-Carlos-Asay[COUGH-COUGH].  Why so shy all of the sudden?

[Abulafia]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from passing judgment against various other people on the thread [COUGH-COUGH]Ron-Leavitt-and-Carlos-Asay[COUGH-COUGH].  Why so shy all of the sudden?

That McKenna saw Carlos Asay can be easily confirmed by the guy who took her to the interview. 

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That McKenna saw Carlos Asay can be easily confirmed by the guy who took her to the interview. 

That she saw him is one thing.  What may (or may not) have transpired during their meeting is another thing entirely.  For that, we have only her word.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

That McKenna saw Carlos Asay can be easily confirmed by the guy who took her to the interview. 

And has he?

[Calm]

Quote

false accusations on various matters that were never prosecuted...... This was done in a blatant attempt to discredit and gaslight her.

CFR please

Quote

false accusations on various matters....which she retracted. 

How can it be a false accusation if she admitted she lied by retracting the accusation?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Mormonleaks made public the audio of McKenna's interview with Bishop without her permission. But with her support after the fact.

According to her lawyer, she was the one who gave it to Mormonleaks.  How is that not giving her permission to make it public?*****

Quote

And I do agree with Happy JW that this is flogging a dead horse.

I thought that was the Latin stuff he was referring to.

*****Should have doublechecked like I usually do, memory was wrong on this claim about Mormonleaks, Smac provides the quote next page.  She gave it to a lot of media.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

Calm, her criminal record is in the public domain. 

It includes 1. A DUI

                   2. Shoplifting

You show me where she was prosecuted on any other matters. 

Show me. CFR.

 

[Abulafia]

"According to her lawyer, she was the one who gave it to Mormonleaks.  How is that not giving her permission to make it public?"

CFR

[Abulafia]

Kengo said:

"Lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from passing judgment against various other people on the thread [COUGH-COUGH]Ron-Leavitt-and-Carlos-Asay[COUGH-COUGH].  Why so shy all of the sudden?"

 

"That she saw him is one thing.  What may (or may not) have transpired during their meeting is another thing entirely.  For that, we have only her word."

I said

"4. If McKenna told Leavitt and if Leavitt organised an interview with Asay, and if she described the assault without calling it rape, then what ever she did after is irrelevant.  "

 

Do you have a problem with point 4?

[Abulafia]

Calm said, on McKenna's accusations against Bishop's son's.. 

"Her claim is Bishop admitted it to her in the transcript"

CFR

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

How can it be a false accusation if she admitted she lied by retracting the accusation?

I amended point 2 for clarity

"2.In retaliation,  with or without the encouragement of church lawyers, Joseph Bishop's son made available to the media a dossier on McKenna's brushes with the law, including (her) false accusations on various matters that were never prosecuted and which she retracted. This was done in a blatant attempt to discredit and gaslight her.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

"According to her lawyer, she was the one who gave it to Mormonleaks.  How is that not giving her permission to make it public?"

CFR

The lawyer was quite clear about this during their media conference at the beginning of the lawsuit.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Thankyou. In your opinion can the JP declare guilt. He can according to the link I provided. Fair suggested the JP couldn't. 

According to the sources I consulted, which were the Statutes of New York for 1813, the 1819 Issue of A New Conductor Generalis, and 1825 Justices' Manual for the State of New York by Thomas Waterman. On page 109 of  A New Conductor Generalis, it states that a justice may convict a one brought before him as a disorderly person in his own view, upon confession, or as established upon oath by one or more credible witnesses. A justice was authorized to commit a person "to the bridewell or house of correction, at hard labor, for a time not to exceed sixty days or until the next general sessions."

Glenn

[Abulafia]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The lawyer was quite clear about this during their media conference at the beginning of the lawsuit.

Thanks will check. Was it on guarantee her name would be kept anonymous? Who actually released her name to the media in the first instance?

[Abulafia]

45 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

According to the sources I consulted, which were the Statutes of New York for 1813, the 1819 Issue of A New Conductor Generalis, and 1825 Justices' Manual for the State of New York by Thomas Waterman. On page 109 of  A New Conductor Generalis, it states that a justice may convict a one brought before him as a disorderly person in his own view, upon confession, or as established upon oath by one or more credible witnesses. A justice was authorized to commit a person "to the bridewell or house of correction, at hard labor, for a time not to exceed sixty days or until the next general sessions."

Glenn

Thankyou. I wonder if FAIR will correct their statement on the matter.

Fwiw I love LDS history,  but have spent the last 6 years or so in the academic study of early Christian history. I apologise for saying the matter is settled, I should have added that it was settled in my mind with the evidence I had before me.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

According to her lawyer, she was the one who gave it to Mormonleaks.  How is that not giving her permission to make it public?

I thought that was the Latin stuff he was referring to.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The lawyer was quite clear about this during their media conference at the beginning of the lawsuit.

 

27 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Thanks will check. Was it on guarantee her name would be kept anonymous? Who actually released her name to the media in the first instance?

As I recall, the lawyer- Craig Vernon - indicated Denson released the audio to multiple places, but did not specify if it was she who released it to mormonleaks; in my minds eye as Craig gets to late part of the conversation he noticably starts to catch himself and hold back.

Abulafia, it is in the oress conference held when Denson filed the suit, might be about half way in.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

As I recall, the lawyer- Craig Vernon - indicated Denson released the audio to multiple places, but did not specify if it was she who released it to mormonleaks;

I think that's right.  See here:

Quote

On 4/7/2018 at 8:04 AM, Amulek said:

I just finished watching the press conference. The only new things I learned were:

She claims Bishop's admission in the BYU police report relating to asking her to expose herself is actually not her but is instead referring to a different victim. 

That makes sense.  I had thought it odd that she had not addressed this incident with Bishop when she recorded her conversation with him.

  Quote

Her attorney stated she was the one who leaked the recording to the media. His exact quote (starting around the 47:35 mark) was that "she leaked it to...she told a lot of people about that; she sent that to a lot of media. We don't know which media did that" [by which, I believe, he means he doesn't know who, specifically, sent it to MormonLeaks].

Wow.  This actually may be sort of significant.  Denson has been quite misleading about the "leak."  Denson told the Deseret News on March 19 "that the tape was released without her permission."  I also seem to recall a statement to the press by Denson where she suggested that one of her friends with whom she had shared the tape had released the recording, but that this would have been without her consent.

Denson also told this misleading statement (falsehood?) to MormonLeaks (or collaborated with them) to perpetuate it (as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune😞

  Quote

The recording posted Monday was shocking: A former LDS Missionary Training Center president was saying he had a sexual addiction and admitting he improperly touched at least one sister missionary under his care. The Colorado woman who had secretly recorded him in December quickly said the tape had been released by the website MormonLeaks without her knowledge or permission.

But after a week of controversy over Joseph L. Bishop’s statements and her claim he had attempted to rape her in 1984, along with criticism of the LDS Church’s response and of MormonLeaks for possibly scuttling a proposed settlement with the church, the woman said Saturday she was glad the website had pushed the scandal into public view.

In a statement posted on MormonLeaks, she wrote that the release, while “prior to my consent,” has “actually helped me,” and she applauded the site’s staffers for supporting her cause.

...

The call to publish the recording was carefully made, MormonLeaks founder Ryan McKnight said Saturday.

“We didn’t see it as hurting her settlement; if she deserves a settlement, it’s because of what he did to her, not because there’s a tape,” he said.

There seems to be some possible collusion here between Denson and MormonLeaks.  Or perhaps Denson deceived MormonLeaks by publicly accusing them of "leaking" a recording without her consent.  Or perhaps she was just trying to mislead the public by omitting the very salient point that she was the original source of the "leak" she claims she did not consent to.

Fox 13 also reported this falsehood (based on Denson's statements):

  Quote

The woman’s comments, posted on the MormonLeaks website on Saturday, said she did not consent to the recording of her confrontation with ex-MTC president Joseph Bishop being leaked — but she was also not upset with them, either.

“It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me,” she wrote. “I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose.”

The woman said she does not feel the leak of the recording is re-victimizing her. 

Here's the statement itself released by MormonLeaks on behalf of Denson (which, again, perpetuates a falsehood) (emphases added):

  Quote

Statement on Behalf of the Victim in Joseph L. Bishop Audio Recording

The following is statement written by the victim whose voice is heard in the audio recording of former Mission President, Joseph L. Bishop, admitting to inappropriate relations with women.

I’m the woman in the recording with Joseph L. Bishop. My identity will be revealed when I file the lawsuit.

First, although MormonLeaks did release my recording prior to my consent, Mr. McKnight and Mr. Dodge support my cause. It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me. I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose. Some have stated that I am heroic and brave. I am neither of those things. I interviewed my rapist because I was pissed off. The church told me I wasn’t entitled to know what action, if any, had been taken in my reporting his raping me to several church leaders for 30 years. I was fed up. It was neither brave nor heroic.

Part of me wanted this to go away quietly and a bigger part of me wanted to scream from the top of the mountain what he did to me. Now I get to scream!

Even if the leak of the recording was prior to my consent, I do not agree that these men are re-victimizing me. I don’t think they would have released the recording without giving it serious thought and weighing the consequences heavily.

I look forward to sharing more of the story in the coming weeks.

This statement is more than a little dishonest.  

Her attorney framed the cessation of settlement discussions with the Church as being caused by the "leak" ("'Since the leak, there have been no further settlement discussions' with the LDS Church, the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, confirmed to The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. 'My client deserves justice.'").  But now, it seems, we know that it was Denson who undermined and scuttled the settlement discussions.  She then lied and blamed MormonLeaks (and/or an unidentified friend of her) for the "leak."

Yes, Denson does indeed deserve justice.  But publicly lying, as Denson has apparently done, to manipulate public sentiment only undermines these efforts.  Her credibility as a witness and truth-teller is an important commodity.  And here we have plain proof, not merely a hint or suggestion or implication, but proof, that she has been lying to and manipulating the media to leverage popular opinion in her favor.  

I think the truth needs to be told about what happened to Denson.  But she is weakening our ability to get there.  The legal system, in order to work, must be able to adjudicate legal claims dispassionately, must do so based on competent, probative, admissible evidence.  In this case, we have a claim of sexual assault from 30+ years ago.  We have no forensic evidence.  We have no documentary or surveillance evidence.  We have no independent percipient witnesses.  

Personally, I suspect Ms. Denson sent the recording to MormonLeaks, which rather negates the complaint that they published it without her consent.  

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

in my minds eye as Craig gets to late part of the conversation he noticably starts to catch himself and hold back.

Abulafia, it is in the oress conference held when Denson filed the suit, might be about half way in.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac