Jump to content

Lawsuit Re: Sex Abuse Allegations Against Daughter of Pres. Nelson and Her Husband


Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — Allegations rejected 30 years ago by multiple law enforcement investigations resurfaced Wednesday in a federal lawsuit filed against the daughter and son-in-law of the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The couple was identified only as John and Jane Doe in the suit, but an attorney for the defendants identified them as Brenda and Richard Miles, the daughter and son-in-law of President Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the Mormon church.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah by six unnamed plaintiffs, alleges that their father and the Mileses were part of a ring of adults and babysitters who sexually assaulted them as young children during "touching parties" at homes in their Bountiful neighborhood.

The Mileses rejected the lawsuit’s claims through their attorney, calling them "patently false and deeply, utterly offensive" and "long-ago debunked accusations."

"We have never abused these children or anyone else. To do so would be contrary to our beliefs, our principles, our character and the way we have always lived our lives. Police investigated these allegations against us more than 30 years ago and found no evidence to support them. To protect ourselves from the specter of false allegations, we voluntarily took a polygraph test. The results of the tests, which we took in 1986, support the reality that we did not sexually abuse these children.”

The Mileses’ attorney, Jim Jardine, said, "Child abuse is evil, but so is a false accusation of child abuse."

Wow.

Decades-old allegations of sexual abuse are deeply problematic. 

-Smac

 

  • Like 4
Link to post

Or just because someone is in a position of authority, power, "big name" doesn't mean they can get away with anything they want to and lowly peasants just have to deal with their deceit and crimes. Like my Grandma used to say your sin is sure to find you out. How do you deal with people in power who did awful things but refuse to acknowledge it? In this Nelson case though it seems looney

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Wow.

Decades-old allegations of sexual abuse are deeply problematic. 

-Smac

 

Without commenting on this case, do you think all the clergy abuse victims who came forward decades later were just making it up?

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most people never face such accusations. Most estimates of false accusations of rape say that they are statistically very rare. On the flip side most sexual assault actually goes unreported. So this is all upside down.

I hope that rapists have a lot to be worried about, as more victims speak up.

I think the Kavanaugh hearings have shattered the old normal, though. I think we're going to see circus claims with every important nominee ---- and the fact that this was replacing Kennedy instead of Scalia is what drove radicals bonkers. 

The fact is that there *are* false accusations ---- rare or not. And where nothing can be corroborated, and six past FBI background checks have turned up nothing, you can't crucify the accused, even if you want to believe the accuser. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Without commenting on this case, do you think all the clergy abuse victims who came forward decades later were just making it up?

I'm not sure what "clergy abuse victims" you are referencing here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most people never face such accusations. Most estimates of false accusations of rape say that they are statistically very rare. On the flip side most sexual assault actually goes unreported. So this is all upside down.

I hope that rapists have a lot to be worried about, as more victims speak up.

Interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

Link to post
37 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I think part of the reason that sexual harassment and assault claims are believed (on their face, even in the absence of evidence) is that they are so extreme and outrageous that the thought of the accusations being false is itself a violation of social norms. To falsely accuse an innocent man of sexual harassment and assault is so patently unethical and beyond the pale of acceptable behavior that many assume it pretty well must be true. “Why in the world would she make it up if it wasn’t true?” is likely the first and only thought needed to accept her claims. No rational, responsible, moral person would do that.

No “rational,  responsible, moral person” would assault women and children either...yet it happens.

Should we assume that all women are rational, responsible, and moral people?  Surely, you can see the leverage of power that unquestioned accusations can give a person.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the Kavanaugh hearings have shattered the old normal, though. I think we're going to see circus claims with every important nominee ---- and the fact that this was replacing Kennedy instead of Scalia is what drove radicals bonkers. 

The fact is that there *are* false accusations ---- rare or not. And where nothing can be corroborated, and six past FBI background checks have turned up nothing, you can't crucify the accused, even if you want to believe the accuser. 

So you're taking one sketchy SCOTUS nominee and trying project a trend from that? A sample size of one?

Kennedy wasn't exactly a liberal justice, you know. In fact he has ties through his son to Trump's questionable loans. The accusations against Kavanaugh are credible. His testimony is riddled with lies and evasions. That's really all that's needed to disqualify him.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 3
Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Interesting reading here:

I am concerned that is what we are seeing in society more.  Allegations against Brett Kavanaugh and others are being bolstered by the notion that the allegation is evidence for itself.

That just doesn't work.

I've seen this line of reasoning, too.  McKenna Denson must be believed because her claims "sound like" other claims of sexual assault.

Again, very problematic.

This is a very important point.  False allegations of rape are virtually never investigated as such.  The focus of criminal proceedings is based on the allegation being proven.  If it fails in that regard, we can't say that it was a "false" claim, or a valid claim that just had evidentiary problems.  In the main, we don't know either way.

This is why I think Gray's question is misguided ("do you think all the clergy abuse victims who came forward decades later were just making it up?").  I won't play the odds when it comes to allegations of sexual assault.  We need to address each of them individually, on their merits and on the evidence.  

I don't think we should grant an unwarranted presumption of truth to any and all rape claims, but the "Believe All Women" crowd is demanding that we do precisely that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Most estimates about the prevalence of false accusations are about 5% or less.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Gray said:

So in response to your question ("do you think all the clergy abuse victims who came forward decades later were just making it up?"), I answer "No."

But as the article I quoted previously observes: 

Quote

But the reality is far more complex, and that complex reality demands individual adjudication and individual assessments. Yes, there are some small number of women who fabricate claims out of whole cloth. There are men who are clearly guilty. But between the two poles of certainty, there is an enormous amount of ambiguity and confusion, and it is the task of the finder of fact to weigh the specific evidence in that specific case.

Christine Blasey Ford has made a serious allegation. It merits a serious hearing. But as we consider its merit, there should be no default presumption that anyone is telling the truth.

"No default presumption" is the key wording here.  The only "default presumption" I am willing to go by is a presumption of innocence for the accused.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

So you're taking one sketchy SCOTUS nominee and trying project a trend from that? A sample size of one?

No, I'm also taking into account the climate in many other areas, not just this hearing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Gray said:

More than one in twenty rape claims (5.5%) are "deemed false or baseless . . . [a figure that is] at least five times higher than for most other offence types."

Moreover, I refuse to grant credence to any particular rape claim based solely on the existence of the claim itself - as you appear to be advocating.

I also refuse to grant credence to any particular rape claim simply because the accuser is a woman.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4
Link to post

It is hard to expect sanity, common sense, and morality when it comes to politics. Do I think rape is not always reported? Of course. Do I think sexual abuse is not always unreported? Of course. Do I know humans lie? Absolutely and without question. Do I think females are human? Without question. Do I think people falsely accuse others in order to win an objective? Yes. 

Do I think that an accusation must be supported by the facts?  Yes.  Do I believe in innocent until proven guilty? Completely and unequivocally. Do I believe in Due Process? Yes, wholeheartedly yes. 

Do I think only one gender should be believed always? Please reread my statements above. 

Link to post
16 minutes ago, pogi said:

No “rational,  responsible, moral person” would assault women and children either...yet it happens.

Should we assume that all women are rational, responsible, and moral people?  Surely, you can see the leverage of power that unquestioned accusations can give a person.

 

I didn't read Anjien's post as saying that it's reasonable to assume that no rational moral person would make up a sexual abuse accusation, only that that's why so many are believed on their face without evidence.  

  • Like 3
Link to post

Is falsely accusing someone of rape as bad as rape itself? Or, is falsely accusing someone of rape not as bad as raping someone?

Rape being extremely evil, to me, falsely accusing someone of it is just as bad as rape itself. I don't think it's somehow a "lesser of two evils." 

This is what angers me about the whole thing. The allegations being as serious as they are, if there is no corroboration or evidence for the claim, then the claim should not be able to be weaponized to submarine a nomination. Even if you really believe that he did it and that he did the things that have been alleged (including the gang rape squads, which even the Democrats are ignoring), without corroboration or evidence after all these years, you can't (or shouldn't) continue to try to have them destroy a man and his family. Unless you don't care about any of that and just want to be 100% political about it. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...