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

[katherine the great]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

And yet in the suit it states that he was videotaped as if it a fact and that he did not know this until 2018. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

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.

I don't remember reading this (I haven't read everything, it was easier to read Smith's stuff than the children's), but it may be it wasn't talked about in depth for many years among the siblings (I have relatives that were abused as children and only one ever speaks of it and she is a very introspective, trying to understand and heal pain person) and then when whatever triggered this lawsuit being undertaken by the family, there was sharing of memories and he found out this was an accusation.  If I were a party to a lawsuit, I would be reading everything connected to it from others involved.  I would want to know others' experiences and reactions to compare it to my own and be as prepared as possible to answer questions reporters, lawyers, and others might have about the basis of the suit.

[katherine the great]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't remember reading this (I haven't read everything, it was easier to read Smith's stuff than the children's), but it may be it wasn't talked about in depth for many years among the siblings (I have relatives that were abused as children and only one ever speaks of it and she is a very introspective, trying to understand and heal pain person) and then when whatever triggered this lawsuit being undertaken by the family, there was sharing of memories and he found out this was an accusation.  If I were a party to a lawsuit, I would be reading everything connected to it from others involved.  I would want to know others' experiences and reactions to compare it to my own and be as prepared as possible to answer questions reporters, lawyers, and others might have about the basis of the suit.

That's certainly a possibility. I have to wonder though if its also a possibility that it was thrown in there to extend the statute of limitations on some of the accusations. Idk.

[Abulafia]

3 hours 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?

Marion Smith notes that the police didn't just turn up randomly,  but phoned the day before and told them they would be searching the house the following day.

I've never heard of that happening here in the UK. It doesn't imply guilt in any way but it is just really strange. 

[Abulafia]

7 hours 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. 

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. 

That's not entirely fair Juliann.

I'll try and explain why.

The Satanic scare stuff did make it's way over here. I've read up extensively on it in the past. I also followed all of alter idem's links.

I also appreciate that some of the techniques used by counsellors have been thought problematic in the extreme.  Hypnosis, suggestive and leading questioning.

I appreciate that Barbara Snow was taken to task and put on probation in 2007 for the way she crossed professional boundaries by treating a relative (a young neice).

I took time to read what I could of the reports (1990) made by the Utah Attorney General's Office.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B33y-u2-Wjf7Z2dSbVZLaEdKanc/view?usp=drivesdk

And the conclusions

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B33y-u2-Wjf7MEg2enRfTmx4cVk/view?usp=drivesdk

They are worth reading for both what they do and don't say. I've read them carefully.

I've also taken time to read objections to the backlash. What I mean is that there are children who talk of being abused within a ritual framework, which may simply mean that the tools of fear used in ordinances and teachings are twisted to manipulate a child.  Children can and do bury memories, and not all recovered memories are false.  

Let me get a link for that.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/02/attacks-on-the-credibility-of-abuse-survivors-are-not-justified-by-research

 

So, despite my inclination to dismiss all accounts of ritual abuse, I have tried to separate them from the more bizarre accounts of worldwide conspiracies and the involvement of MKUltra. Though I do appreciate that programme did have unfortunate consequences for people like the Unabomber .

When you say I am paying attention to the biggest liar of the lot,  are you referring to Bill Carstensen or to Marion Smith?

 

What else would you like me to read? I will read it.

Ps I did read up on the McMartin case, and appreciate the cultural context in which the scares, panic,  arose.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Abulafia

[katherine the great]

22 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Marion Smith notes that the police didn't just turn up randomly,  but phoned the day before and told them they would be searching the house the following day.

I've never heard of that happening here in the UK. It doesn't imply guilt in any way but it is just really strange. 

That is strange here in the US as well. Although Ms Smith's account also states that the children picked out pictures of the babysitter's male accomplices from the yearbook but this suit refers to them as "unknown" individuals so there are some discrepancies  For the record, I think the charges against the Miles are outrageous. I don't for a minute believe that the they did this or anything close to it. I don't think the kids made it up either. I think Ms Smith and Ms Snow are the responsible parties.

[Abulafia]

4 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

That is strange here in the US as well. Although Ms Smith's account also states that the children picked out pictures of the babysitter's male accomplices from the yearbook but this suit refers to them as "unknown" individuals so there are some discrepancies  For the record, I think the charges against the Miles are outrageous. I don't for a minute believe that the they did this or anything close to it. I don't think the kids made it up either. I think Ms Smith and Ms Snow are the responsible parties.

I understand that. If this ever gets to court. It's up to them to hash it out. I don't know is my response.  I just don't know.

What we do have is children who were undoubtedly abused and traumatised, a dead babysitter and a dead father who was never found guilty by police and never tried by court..(And I understand a parents reluctance to allow children to testify, because having watched adult survivors testify and be aggressively questioned in front of their abusers, it is an awful thing to have to do.) 

Bill Carstensen was also never punished by church authorities despite the medical evidence and his diagnosis as a paedophile.  That I still cannot fathom because in my friends case her father was released as Bishop and was subject to church discipline. I don't get the disparity.

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I understand that. If this ever gets to court. It's up to them to hash it out. I don't know is my response.  I just don't know.

What we do have is children who were undoubtedly abused and traumatised, a dead babysitter and a dead father who was never found guilty by police and never tried by court..(And I understand a parents reluctance to allow children to testify, because having watched adult survivors testify and be aggressively questioned in front of their abusers, it is an awful thing to have to do.) 

Bill Carstensen was also never punished by church authorities despite the medical evidence and his diagnosis as a paedophile.  That I still cannot fathom because in my friends case her father was released as Bishop and was subject to church discipline. I don't get the disparity.

 

I don't really have an opinion about Bill Carstensen's guilt or innocence. I tend towards believing that he did something to the children, but even those may have been planted. Why he was never disciplined for it, I don't know--maybe once Snow came under investigation they deemed the evidence unreliable? There are no exhibits that support any physical damage to the children that I saw. After reading the suit more thoroughly, I don't think they have a case against the Miles. None of the evidence is of any value because it was all recorded after they began their brainwashing sessions with Snow--all of the journal entries are tainted because they were recounting memories that may or may not have been real. 

I've been thinking about the babysitter...The suit only claims that they "heard" that the babysitter committed suicide. We know for sure that Carstensen did, but no one really seems to know for sure about the babysitter. I guess they can't disclose her name because she was a minor when this all happened. I feel bad for her in any case. If she herself was a victim turned perp she would surely have struggled with her mental health. If she was completely innocent of the charges and became a pariah, she would be no better off emotionally. So sad for all of them in any light...

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

 

Bill Carstensen was also never punished by church authorities despite the medical evidence and his diagnosis as a paedophile.  That I still cannot fathom because in my friends case her father was released as Bishop and was subject to church discipline. I don't get the disparity.

 

His diagnosis iirc was he had pedophilic feelings, but that he was not dangerous to others, which I assume means they didn't believe he either acted on them or would act on them.  Not all pedophiles are predators, many abusers of children are not.

I do not believe we know the specifics of the medical evidence (perhaps there were details elsewhere but when speaking of his first family, Smith didn't give details iirc) and if and when it was presented to Church leaders.  Iirc, Smith said Church leaders would not discuss the accusations with her after the first couple of times (she thought it implied a coverup, it could have been for legal reasons or because they trusted the police findings, but didn't believe it was useful to get into a conflict over the accusations or something else).

Iirc, she also stated those accused were immediately released (though again iirc she saw it as coverup rather than affirmative action).

And police records are lost so there is no way to determine if Smith is accurate in stating they were phoned the day before.  If I understand correctly, while she lived in the area, it was her daughter's neighbourhood and not her own, so much of her info may be second or third hand or worst, but she doesn't identified such things clearly imo.  Even if firsthand, did she claim she was taking notes at the time about all the details or mainly of the kids' comments and reactions?  Can't remember what she was referring to when she talked about keeping records.  If she did take notes at that time, does she still have the originals to prove it?  She may be very honest, but in such things I don't think you can't take anything as a given (except such things as UFO abduction, dismemberment and reassembly of children during abuse didn't actually occur).

Which reminds me.... I had a waking dream when I was 9 one summer night when everyone else was asleep, but I was too hot to sleep.  The roof opened up and a flying saucer with three shadowy figures looking down at me was there and somehow was slowly drawing me to it, my legs rising up until I was about at a 45 degree angle with my head still on my pillow but just starting to lift off.  Then I snapped out of it and fully woke up, the roof was back on and I knew it had been a dream but still terrified and thinking it was really cool at the same time.  I even felt my legs drop back to the bed as if strings had been cut.  It was very, very vivid and it is possible if anyone around me believed in ufos I might have believed it was real because I didn't feel asleep (but obviously was in the halfway in and out lucid dreaming stage).  But since I knew ufos weren't real, it had to be a dream, right?

Smith talks about nightmares the kids were having.  I had some major nightmares as a child that were very real.  I can still feel the despair of one I had when I was three, but of course now it is more memory of a memory of a memory of a Dream.  Post surgery narcotics as an adult had me convinced there was an intruder standing by my bed, looking down at me, hands just hanging at his side, and I 'know' for a fact in that moment I am screaming for my husband but of course when I asked him the next day he had heard nothing....fun times...especially when I think I have woken up, but I haven't like five or six times before I actually manage it.  Then there are those that get repeated over the years.  

If an adult I trusted had told me it was real, that I was remembering actual events and suggested additional information that made it more realistic (no, it wasn't a vampire taking Mom and Dad away, but that neighbor; there was an intruder in a neighbor's house and police believe he went into others), I can easily see me as a child believing it really happened to me and maybe wondering as an adult. 

Mind and memory, fascinating and not particularly trustworthy in my experience.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

It's interesting to me, Katherine that you use the term *brainwashing * for the children that Barbara Snow specifically interviewed. From what I understand in the suit, a lot of information from the children *Didn't* come through Barbara Snow.

 

Will write later..off on travels for the day.

I have more thought on Barbara Snow and want to push back a little on the idea that no information garnered through her interview techniques is reliable.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

From the Attorney  General's Report. [1995]

 

[Abulafia]

So, as I understand it, for a suit to go forward there has to be corroborating evidence.

What constitutes acceptable corroborating evidence in this case?

[Abulafia]

This is from 1995. If anyone can update me on anything more current I would be grateful. 

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

From the Attorney  General's Report. [1995]

 

I would like to know what their "evidence" is for "many isolated instances of ritual abuse of children perpetrated by individuals or small groups, and sometimes those people have used at least the trappings of Satanism..."

For example, author Richard Beck did extensive research into that era, and says in this interview:

Quote

I asked Beck if in all his exhaustive research he had been able to track down a single instance of verified Satanic ritual child abuse. “No,” says. “My editor and I joked that the book would sell better if I could find an actual case, but as far as I could find it never happened.” Since they didn’t occur in reality, the infernal elements had to be products of adult interpretation and suggestion. Yet whole municipalities managed to convince themselves that there were hidden networks of devil worship and child abuse in their own backyards.

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

None of the Satanic conspiracies panned out, and the allegations turned out to have been ginned up by overeager investigators acting on confirmation bias. But instead of dispelling fear of stranger danger and leading to a new era of child independence, America settled into an intermediate position: There probably weren’t Satanic abuse cults, but unguarded kids were still in danger from normal perverts. The fear of child sexual abuse outside the home lingered, even though that’s not where it tends to happen. “The panic help produce two big and lasting misconceptions,” Beck says. “The first is that abusers are likely to be outside the family, and the second is that sexual abuse is a bigger threat to kids than non-sexual physical abuse. Based on the statistics we have, neither of those ideas are true.”

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by cinepro

[katherine the great]

9 hours ago, Abulafia said:

It's interesting to me, Katherine that you use the term *brainwashing * for the children that Barbara Snow specifically interviewed. From what I understand in the suit, a lot of information from the children *Didn't* come through Barbara Snow.

Well we'll never know for sure since she did not document the sessions and any sessions the children (from Carstensen's first marriage) had with other therapists came later (and would already have been tainted by Snow's aggressive techniques).  I think "brainwashing" is an appropriate term here. Have you read the grandmother's statement thoroughly? I felt myself becoming increasingly angry as I read it. They didn't believe the children and poked and prodded them until they said what the therapists wanted to hear. The Bishop kept his 8 year old son up all night until he admitted that he had been abused (which the child denied). I've seen eerily similar police interviews that resulted in documented false confessions from grown men. It's not a stretch to apply that to vulnerable children. Then, the grandparents held a creepy party for the children complete with effigies of the alleged offenders and rewarding (conditioning) the kids for "helping" their friends by exposing their supposed abuse. I think its outrageous and I think a lot of lives were destroyed by these two women.

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I would like to know what their "evidence" is for "many isolated instances of ritual abuse of children perpetrated by individuals or small groups, and sometimes those people have used at least the trappings of Satanism..."

For example, author Richard Beck did extensive research into that era, and says in this interview:

 

You would have to take that up with the Attorney General's Office. I think, Cinepro, it's really important to separate out *ritual abuse* from the wider Satanic scare tactics. 

Ritual abuse, is far more mundane and just means that perpetrators can and will use their religious upbringing to install fear in children. I think the findings of the office are sound. 

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Well we'll never know for sure since she did not document the sessions and any sessions the children (from Carstensen's first marriage) had with other therapists came later (and would already have been tainted by Snow's aggressive techniques).  I think "brainwashing" is an appropriate term here. Have you read the grandmother's statement thoroughly? I felt myself becoming increasingly angry as I read it. They didn't believe the children and poked and prodded them until they said what the therapists wanted to hear. The Bishop kept his 8 year old son up all night until he admitted that he had been abused (which the child denied). I've seen eerily similar police interviews that resulted in documented false confessions from grown men. It's not a stretch to apply that to vulnerable children. Then, the grandparents held a creepy party for the children complete with effigies of the alleged offenders and rewarding (conditioning) the kids for "helping" their friends by exposing their supposed abuse. I think its outrageous and I think a lot of lives were destroyed by these two women.

It wasn't Barbara Snow, but Dr Ann Tyler who confirmed that the children of mother 1 had been sexually abused by at least 2 babysitters, the Miles and their father Bill.

The children admitted to being abused by the babysitter and at least 2 others in sessions with Barbara Snow. 

 

It was their mother who was first informed by Jane Doe 1 that the Miles were involved.

*16. Shortly thereafter, JANE DOE 1 identified to MOTHER 1 that DOE 1 MALE 
DEFENDANT and DOE 2 FEMALE DEFENDANT sexually assaulted children at so called 
“touching parties.” *

It was to the Mother1 that Jane Doe 1 told of the involvement of her own father (Bill) in the abuse. Not Snow.

*18. Shortly after the visit by the Apostle in late January or early February 1986, JANE 
DOE 1 identified Perpetrator, her own father, as participating with DOE 1 MALE DEFENDANT 
and DOE 2 FEMALE DEFENDANT in committing these heinous crimes against children. *

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Abulafia

[Calm]

The sessions with Snow occurred first though.  Smith states Snow gave the two girls a clean bill of health prior to connecting their babysitter to them.  At that point she reinterviewed the girls and kept one of the girls for two hours until she finally came up with one description of abuse.  At which point iirc, she was applauded for being a hero and allowed to leave.  Just that treatment alone sets up a kid for knowing what is needed later to get the Session to stop as well as positive attention.

Iirc, next time all the kids came in for an interview with Snow.  After that, other therapists got involved.  The stories the kids told developed over months and maybe years (a bit hard to tell innSmith's writings).  Details got added as well as perpetrators.  To suggest that just because certain people were accused in the presence of one therapist that means a previous therapist had no influence over that accusation is inaccurate.  What Smith describes is an ongoing, intensely emotional turmoil at home coupled with interviews.  You can't separate one from the other in examining how the children's stories might have evolved from adult influence and even communication with siblings and friends.

If I understand the timing right, the above all occurred after the other Bountiful accusations that ended up with one man in jail.  I don't think you can treat this event as two separate things.  Smith presented it as parents asking their children about being abused because of the first accusations and it is highly likely this was being discussed among the kids themselves.

It is also, imo, impossible to untangle the effect Marion Smith might have had on the mother, her daughter, (identified as Mother1) given she describes herself as discussing potential abuse with her daughter iirc and certainly she was intimately involved as soon as the mother had those concerns.  She was not only there with the children, but iirc she and her husband went back and were present during some of the treatment of Carstensen.

  It makes sense if Smith believed her techniques were effective, that she would be instructing her daughter in them or at the very least would have shared her ideas and approaches in conversations over the years.

Having one of the therapists associated with the Clinic being a close relative who was involved in the daily care of the children makes it impossible, imo, to weed out influences that occurred from treatment by Snow.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

Katherine,  we'd also have to discount the testimony of Dr Paul Whitehead who treated the children.

 

 

[Calm]

In addition, it is not just about when the children told people someone was involved that is important in tracking influence, but when Snow, Smith, and other adults started suggesting--either explicitly or implicitly--- their involvement.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Unless Whitehead identified how he was able to distinguish group abuse from the abuse of one person, as far as we know his decision it was a group was based on prior accusations, not independent findings.

Is there any therapist or doctor who treated them whi states they were totally unaware of the child's history prior to treatment and that such history was not shared with them during their examination?

If Whitehead was even told he was to look for signs of abuse, one cannot describe his examination  as an independent one.

I am not saying it was wrong to share history, it makes sense to build on the work of others.  It, however, makes it difficult to determine what led the children to say what about who, especially without documentation on what the interview questions and home discussions wee like.  Smith describes her daughter as having a panic attack at one point when a door got locked accidentally, iirc, and she starts pounding and screaming on the door.  That the kids who heard her had more nightmares and accusation details is hardly surprising.  you can't separate out what was happening to the children from  the adults if they were all living in the same house or having frequent visits.  The Dad was even calling them every night encouraging them to dig deep and tell the truth. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

1.Snow didn't suggest other involvement except the babysitter and two other (youths).

2. The Child raised the name of the Miles to her mother.

3. The Child raised the name of her father to her mother.

Those, we are told, are the facts.

 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

1.Snow didn't suggest other involvement except the babysitter and two other (youths).

2. The Child raised the name of the Miles to her mother.

3. The Child raised the name of her father to her mother.

Those, we are told, are the facts.

 

They are claims if we are "told", not facts, unless you know of recordings that can prove this is how it happened.

The claims you seem to be ignoring are from Smith's description, the adults didn't just stop asking about who were their abusers once someone was named.  They kept pushing for more details and then massively rewarded the children for being brave and heroes.  It was an ongoing process, not an intermittent occurrence where the children said something, nothing more was discussed with them and they never heard it discussed in their environment and then a week or month later with no reason to say something, the child brought up all on their own a new accusation.

This was a constant ongoing discussion from Smith's description and human dynamics means the children were not only hearing about it at home and at treatments, but as school and other places with their friends and possibly even the news.  They were not kept in isolation from each other or outsiders.  The discussion would not only be about their own family, but all the turmoil that surrounded the previous accusation in the neighbourhood (Bullock was the one charged, iirc; but there was the same claim of many adults and children involved).  There were other families who were grilling their children about being victims.  We have no way of knowing if those parents asked about specific people or if they were careful, though chances with what we know many of them weren't (the example of the Bishop refusing to let his child sleep until he gave a name...that father might not have been the only one doing that).  We have no way of knowing if the children shared those experiences with each other at school, play, or with siblings, but it seems extremely probable that they would.  Smith talks about having group abuse sessions/parties where adults were opening accused and attacked as monsters.  It is extremely unlikely the children kept such things to themselves and didn't tell others that Mom or Dr. Snow or whoever called them brave and heroes.   Of course this is going to influence how the other children then talk about potential abuse.  Adults are not the only ones that gossip.

I am not suggesting there was anything malicious originally**** going, but having good intentions isn't a protective from making massive mistakes.

****Smith talks about coming to hate the Church and writes a fictionalized account where the narrator kills the child abuser.  It is very understandable why she would hate, but that level of emotion will have an impact on her memories and interpretation of events when looking back almost 20 years later (the included statement from her is from 2004) and even as the events unfolded.  You don't hurt for the horrors you believe your grandchildren went through or watch your daughter have a total meltdown or see ongoing deep damage you believe comes from the abuse in grandchildren's lives as they grow into adulthood without losing the ability to think clearly and critically to some extent.

-----

You said you made a timeline, could you post it please?

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

57 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

1.Snow didn't suggest other involvement except the babysitter and two other (youths).

2. The Child raised the name of the Miles to her mother.

3. The Child raised the name of her father to her mother.

Those, we are told, are the facts.

 

Have you reviewed the notes and recordings from Snow's counseling sessions? 

Because if she didn't suggest those things, this could be notable as the one time she didn't.

Abulafia, ultimately I'm afraid I have no confidence in your knowledge of the breadth and scope of what was happening in the 1980s, and how it happened.  You are exhibiting the exact same thinking that led to so many innocent people being sent to jail. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by cinepro

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Katherine,  we'd also have to discount the testimony of Dr Paul Whitehead who treated the children.

 

 

So what?  He was treating them for sexual abuse. They believed they were sexually abused. They well may have been sexually abused. I don't see anything even slightly reliable that shows that they were sexually abused by the Miles.