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

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I would like to know if he was medicated as well as his usual style of conversational interaction with his family.  From what was reported by Smith, he seemed to be prone to going along with what ever was being promoted even if not good for him.

As an abuser, lying was hardly foreign to him.  Deflecting negative attention to someone else, blaming others...not seeing why that would be a problem for him.

Seriously, do you find it doubtful that an abuser who lied about his own involvement in abuse might lie about others' involvement?

I think he admitted the abuse until he realised he wasn't going to be prosecuted by law or punished  by the church, at which point he went back into denial.

I don't know how implicating others would excuse him in his own mind. I guess if the tape recording was admissible evidence, that would be hashed out by the lawyers.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Abulafia

[jerryp48]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I think he admitted the abuse until he realised he wasn't going to be prosecuted by law or punished  by the church, at which point he went back into denial.

I don't know how implicating others would excuse him in his own mind. I guess if the tape recording was admissible evidence, that would be hashed out by the lawyers.

Aren’t you simply repeating what his ex-mother-in-law testified to?   In fact isn’t there a presumption of innocence in the case of Bill Carstensen?  He was never convicted of child abuse.  Everyone seems to assume he committed suicide because he was a pedophile.

I wonder why no one has gone after Barbara Snow more aggressively.  She seem like the common denominator in all these allegations and convictions.

[Abulafia]

34 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Aren’t you simply repeating what his ex-mother-in-law testified to?   In fact isn’t there a presumption of innocence in the case of Bill Carstensen?  He was never convicted of child abuse.  Everyone seems to assume he committed suicide because he was a pedophile.

I wonder why no one has gone after Barbara Snow more aggressively.  She seem like the common denominator in all these allegations and convictions.

Have you read the suit?

[jerryp48]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Have you read the suit?

I read Marion Smith's document.  Can you provide a link to the suit?

[Abulafia]

41 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

I read Marion Smith's document.  Can you provide a link to the suit?

https://fox13now.com/2018/10/03/lawsuit-alleging-sex-abuse-cover-up-filed-against-family-of-lds-church-president/

If you scroll to the bottom, you'll  find the suit filed by the victim's lawyer.

[jerryp48]

40 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

https://fox13now.com/2018/10/03/lawsuit-alleging-sex-abuse-cover-up-filed-against-family-of-lds-church-president/

If you scroll to the bottom, you'll  find the suit filed by the victim's lawyer.

The lawsuit alleges Bill Carslensen abused the children.   He committed suicide.  We don’t know of his guilt.  He was never convicted.

[Abulafia]

24 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

The lawsuit alleges Bill Carslensen abused the children.   He committed suicide.  We don’t know of his guilt.  He was never convicted.

Okay, so where do you want to go with this? All children from the first and second marriage showed medical evidence of having been abused. Are you saying that they are lying and that the medical records are false?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

The lawsuit alleges Bill Carslensen abused the children.   He committed suicide.  We don’t know of his guilt.  He was never convicted.

I think the evidence points to Carslensen being an abuser, and Barbara Snow expanding the scope of the accusations to others in the community.

[juliann]

Abulafia, that you would call the mass hysteria of the 80s a “scare” tells me you do not know much about it. You were in England so you wouldn’t be expected to. I and others here are telling you that you are not understanding the scope of this awful period where so many innocents were persecuted and imprisoned. 

I highly recommend, in fact I think you must, find the tapes of what the therapy was. I assume the McMartin case would be online. Like I said before, these were televised with a running commentary pointing out how the children were led and even badgered into saying what the therapist wanted. 

As you are seeing it is very hard for those who did live through this to take your objections seriously without a knowledge of how this all happened. 

I am also finding your reliance on a second hand account of the biggest liar of the bunch implicating someone downright odd. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by juliann

[Gray]

On 10/5/2018 at 11:25 AM, SteveO said:

There’s nothing wrong with what I wrote.  And I’m happy to answer your CFR if you can show me where I said that you did?  

You said:

 

Quote

 

I bet you’re falling over yourself with concern about Kavenaugh throwing ice back in the day...what did you think about Bill telling Juanita Broaddrick to ice her lip after violently sexually assaulting her?  Or is that just the sort of trashy woman we can expect when dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park?  The women has to be a liberal from  Palo Alto, California to be credible? 

I already know what the left thinks of women who don’t suit their needs.  Which means they’re no friend of women at all.

You’re so totally blind to partisan bias you don’t realize how ridiculous you sound.

 

CFR that I have ever defended Bill Clinton's sexual behavior, or retract

[Gray]

On 10/5/2018 at 9:47 AM, bluebell said:

That may be true for you, but I don't believe that's true for everyone.

Did you have an opinion about OJ back in the day, before the verdict? What's your opinion now?

[Gray]

On 10/3/2018 at 3:38 PM, clarkgoble said:

According to Wikipedia it's about 5%. That admittedly includes strangers where misidentification is much higher. Still it's not the "very rare" that I've seen batted around on Twitter the past couple of weeks. This seems the most cited scholarly study in the US.

In any case, even if it were much less than 5%, say only 1%, that's still quite common given the number of rapes. I'd imagine that for public figures especially where there's anger that the rate would be higher. Much like false accusations of abuse are relatively common in divorce even if even there it's like 5% or less. It's high enough that one can't just assume a charge is accurate. 

While I'd be the first to say we need to make it easier to make rape charges, we have to do this without throwing out due process. It's a bit disturbing to see some arguing we should just have far more innocent men be "convicted" of rape falsely if it catches more rapists. And yes I'm consistent in this. I think there were huge problems with the way society backlashed against crime in the 80's and 90's leading to a lot of people in jail who probably shouldn't be. At minimum I think ethically challenged prosecutors should themselves be charged.

Again, due process has nothing to do with this until and if Kavanaugh faces criminal charges. Someone credibly accused of rape (on top of lying throughout their job interview) would not get a job with any reputable organization.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Did you have an opinion about OJ back in the day, before the verdict? What's your opinion now?

We watched the trail in one of my college classes. I thought the evidence pointed to him being guilty but I wasn’t upset with him being cleared because I personally wasn’t convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Right now?  I haven’t thought about it in years. I guess I feel the same now as then. Has something changed?

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, juliann said:

Abulafia, that you would call the mass hysteria of the 80s a “scare” tells me you do not know much about it. You were in England so you wouldn’t be expected to. I and others here are telling you that you are not understanding the scope of this awful period where so many innocents were persecuted and imprisoned. 

I highly recommend, in fact I think you must, find the tapes of what the therapy was. I assume the McMartin case would be online. Like I said before, these were televised with a running commentary pointing out how the children were led and even badgered into saying what the therapist wanted. 

It is unfortunate that Snow apparently did not tape her interviews very often or even take notes according to one legal discussion of her probation (I linked to it earlier).

The McMartin stuff is probably the only ones likely to be generally accessible these days.

This looks like a decent short summary:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2R21tWs-qCw

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We watched the trail in one of my college classes. I thought the evidence pointed to him being guilty but I wasn’t upset with him being cleared because I personally wasn’t convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Right now?  I haven’t thought about it in years. I guess I feel the same now as then. Has something changed?

Thanks for sharing. Is it okay to think Kavanaugh is guilty? He sure acts guilty. The evidence (what little there is) points that way too.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks for sharing. Is it okay to think Kavanaugh is guilty? He sure acts guilty. The evidence (what little there is) points that way too.

I think it's o.k. to think that Kavanaugh is guilty.  I don't think it's o.k. to be up in arms because not everyone thinks the same. It's one thing to have an opinion based on very little evidence but it's another to demand that an opinion based on very little evidence be treated as fact.  

When our opinions are based on very little evidence we need to acknowledge that that means our opinions are weakly supported and could easily be wrong.

[SteveO]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

You said:

 

 

CFR that I have ever defended Bill Clinton's sexual behavior, or retract

🙄

There’s nothing to retract buddy, I never said you defended him.  Re read your asinine comment I was initially responding to, and then re read mine within that context.  My comment contains a question of what YOU THOUGHT of Bill Clinton’s actions.  It was rhetorical. It’s a technique used from time to time when trying to make a point.  I already knew you didn’t defend Bill Clinton’s actions.  That was the point.  I also imagine any decent person at the time that identified with the political left privetly wouldn’t have defended Bill Clinton—although they still defended him in public discourse. 

Why?  Political expediency at the expense of women.

My point was, and continues to be, the absurdity that the party of Bill Clinton, and by extension, Ted Kennedy, John F Kennedy, Keith Ellison, Harvey Weinstein,  Anthony Weiner, and every other sexually deviant politician and liberal donor of the last 50 years...now believes and defends women.  It was for political expediency that the left believed, and continues to believe Christine Ford.  The irony of course, is that after destroying women with ACTUAL CREDIBLE accusations for decades, they’re pretending to believe a women making accusations that wouldn’t even be enough for a search warrant.  You know it’s true, I know it’s true, we all know it’s true.  

You’re only willing to believe all this absurdity because you want it to be true.  Because what all this is really about...is one more conservative on the Supreme Court.  Quit pretending that this is anything other than politics.

They’ve asked us to drop the subject anyhow on this thread.  I’m not going to keep explaining to you how I never said what...I never said.  You have recourses to report me to the Mods if you wish.  But I’m done.

Edited October 8, 2018 by SteveO

[jerryp48]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the evidence points to Carslensen being an abuser, and Barbara Snow expanding the scope of the accusations to others in the community.

Now having read the suit and motion to dismiss I would tend to agree.

[jerryp48]

This really makes me wonder about the Bullock case and any other case in which Snow was involved.  The amazing thing is she’s still practicing.  In her wake are two suicides, two convictions (one overturned), and now this suit implicating one of the most saintly families I know.  Not to mention smashing up her sisters home with a baseball bat.  I think in the end we’re going to to learn that many people have been duped by a very convincing sociopath.  I’m fairly convinced Marion Smith suffers from  schizophrenia as well.

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by jerryp48

[katherine the great]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

https://fox13now.com/2018/10/03/lawsuit-alleging-sex-abuse-cover-up-filed-against-family-of-lds-church-president/

If you scroll to the bottom, you'll  find the suit filed by the victim's lawyer.

I wasn't able to read the entire document but it appears one of the plaintiff claims that the accused couple produced a video of the abuse and distributed it. Has such a video actually been found?

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Again, due process has nothing to do with this until and if Kavanaugh faces criminal charges. Someone credibly accused of rape (on top of lying throughout their job interview) would not get a job with any reputable organization.

Nonsense.  You're using an extremely unduly narrow definition of due process with which I think few, if any, lawyers (although, if it needs to be said, I am not one ) would agree.  This whole business of, "It's not really a hearing" or "It's not really a hearing hearing" or "It's just a job interview" so, therefore, due process doesn't apply, seems more than a little disingenuous.  What sort(s) of due process should be available in any given proceeding, and what, exactly affording someone such due process in any given proceeding or circumstance might look like may be debatable, but the necessity of due process for any fair proceeding (whether that proceeding be a criminal proceeding, an administrative hearing, Senate advise-and-consent proceedings, or some other type of hearing) is not.

Future political posts will be removed.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I wasn't able to read the entire document but it appears one of the plaintiff claims that the accused couple produced a video of the abuse and distributed it. Has such a video actually been found?

Iirc, the police searched the house and found nothing and that was one of the reasons they apparently dropped the investigation pretty quickly.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I wasn't able to read the entire document but it appears one of the plaintiff claims that the accused couple produced a video of the abuse and distributed it. Has such a video actually been found?

No.  There was never any evidence of videotaping.  There were also claims of "shots" being administered to the children, but never any evidence of that, and such claims were very common in the "recovered memories" cases in which people like Snow were involved.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

This really makes me wonder about the Bullock case and any other case in which Snow was involved.  The amazing thing is she’s still practicing.  In her wake are two suicides, two convictions (one overturned), and now this suit implicating one of the most saintly families I know.  Not to mention smashing up her sisters home with a baseball bat.  I think in the end we’re going to to learn that many people have been duped by a very convincing sociopath.  I’m fairly convinced Marion Smith suffers from  schizophrenia as well.

 

 

 

Hopefully this doesn't get too political, but I found this article fascinating.

Janet Reno’s Last Victim

Quote

[Frank Fuster] is in prison today for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit — one that in all probability never happened at all: He is the last man incarcerated on convictions stemming from the mass hysteria involving what came to be known as SRA — Satanic ritual abuse — purportedly happening at day-care centers (and in subterranean lairs, and in outer space — more on that below) in the 1980s and 1990s. Fuster and his wife (immigrants from Cuba and Honduras, respectively) were the central figures in the “Country Walk” Satanic-ritual-abuse cases, accused of staging outlandish orgies of pedophilic rape involving instruments ranging from crucifixes to drills to snakes, with which children allegedly were sodomized.

Those familiar with the history of these cases will not be surprised to learn that while such theatrical and invasive abuse would have left a significant trail of physical evidence, the absence of such evidence did not prevent Fuster’s conviction. Instead, Fuster was convicted on evidence of a different sort: His then-wife, 17 years old at the time of her arrest, was held in solitary confinement for months on end and abused on the orders of Janet Reno, the Florida prosecutor who went on to become Bill Clinton’s attorney general.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rash of similar cases toward the end of the last century constituted a moral panic not unlike the Salem witch hunts. Children, after a good deal of bullying and interrogation, produced the wildest stories of sexual abuse: They told of being buried alive, of being transported to Mexican prisons, of being taken into orbit on spacecraft where they were sexually abused. They told tales of murder and cannibalism. Despite the obvious and undeniable absurdity of these stories, they were used as the basis for a series of sex-abuse cases marked by egregious prosecutorial misconduct and investigatory abuse. In Fuster’s case, Reno’s team claimed that his young son was infected with gonorrhea in his throat, and that this was evidence of his sexual abuse. The test they used was preposterously unreliable (a third of the positive results were in error), and, worse yet, prosecutors destroyed the evidence before it could be retested — which does not suggest that they were acting in good faith. Moreover, Frank Fuster himself tested negative for gonorrhea.

 

[katherine the great]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iirc, the police searched the house and found nothing and that was one of the reasons they apparently dropped the investigation pretty quickly.

What's confusing to me is that the suit states that the child (now a man) did not find out that he was videotaped until 2018 but it doesn't state how he found out. There may be an explanation that I missed.