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

[Abulafia]

Here is the full paragraph.  

 

"In about 1993 our two youngest daughters decided to sue Bill civilly for their abuse. Their attorney was Rocky Anderson, now mayor of Salt Lake.

Bill never defended himself or answered the complaint. The girls were awarded a no contest judgment of two and a half million dollars but it was hard to collect the hundred twenty five dollars a month each girl was allotted by the judge who thought this was all Bill’s financial condition enabled him to spare. Before the judgment, Bill called and asked Nick what they wanted since they knew he had no money. Our youngest daughter called him back and informed him that if he would admit what he had done and get in therapy with a qualified therapist who would send progress reports to them, they would drop all charges. Bill said nothing.

[Abulafia]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I thought he died before it went to trial. Did his estate not contest things?

This isn't the step children. It's Marion Smith's two youngest daughters.

[Abulafia]

1993. Two years before his suicide.

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

1993. Two years before his suicide.

Thank you for that clarification. 

[Abulafia]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thank you for that clarification. 

No problem. It's quite a complex issue.  Lots of documents to sift through.  

 

I'm  still adding to the timeline.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xA2b4pwWuHWc2G2cXLVlJb8vMfbBnuFYGP2TzDzN1TI/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

[katherine the great]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

This isn't the step children. It's Marion Smith's two youngest daughters.

Just to clarify,  these would be the mothers of Bill’s children and nieces and nephews he allegedly abused. Not the children themselves. 

[cinepro]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:07 AM, Abulafia said:

Cinepro. Just an added point. Marion Smith's  two youngest daughters successfully sued the perpetrator. It was a *no contest* win. 

 

Do you still want to pronounce upon his innocence?

 

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about.   I've never said Bill Carstensen was innocent.  I've simply pointed out facets of the case that might support the idea he was innocent.  I do "pronounce" that the Miles are innocent.

Also, you do understand what a "no contest win" is, right?   It's not the same as admitting guilt.  It just means he didn't fight it, which could have been for any number of reasons. 

 

Quote

In about 1993 our two youngest daughters decided to sue Bill civilly for their abuse.  Their attorney was Rocky Anderson, now mayor of Salt Lake. Bill never defended himself or answered the complaint. The girls were awarded a no-contest judgment of two and a half million dollars, but it was hard to collect the hundred twenty five dollars a month each girl was allotted by the judge who thought this was all Bill's financial condition enabled him to spare. Before the judgment, Bill called and asked Nick what they wanted since they knew he had no money. Our youngest daughter called him back and informed him that if he would admit what he had done and get in therapy with a qualified therapist who would send progress reports to them, they would drop all charges. Bill said nothing.

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by cinepro

[Abulafia]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Just to clarify,  these would be the mothers of Bill’s children and nieces and nephews he allegedly abused. Not the children themselves. 

No. Not the mother's. Yes his nieces (in law). According to Smith, he allegedly began abusing them sexually when he began dating mother 1. She had always suspected, but they didn't come forward till they were adults themselves. Not unusual for child victims of sexual abuse.  

[Abulafia]

Here's what you said Cinepro

"As I've said before, I'm much more inclined to think Bill was guilty, but the case against him keeps getting weaker and weaker"

To me, in light of what's out there in terms of records,  and the number of victims who came forward....an unbelievable statement. And Bill was allegedly a victim himself of childhood abuse. Most of them seem to be.  

 

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Here's what you said Cinepro

"As I've said before, I'm much more inclined to think Bill was guilty, but the case against him keeps getting weaker and weaker"

To me, in light of what's out there in terms of records,  and the number of victims who came forward....an unbelievable statement. And Bill was allegedly a victim himself of childhood abuse. Most of them seem to be.  

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  When I said the case was getting "weaker and weaker", only meant the what had appeared to be very strong and direct evidence of his guilt seemed to not be so strong and direct in many cases.  Thus it was getting "weaker."  But that didn't mean I thought there was no good evidence against him, or that he was innocent.

The fundamental question for me is what evidence there is against Bill that wasn't revealed after talking to a therapist that believes in "recovered memories"?  

For example, I think this is a key statement.  Marion Smith says:

Quote

On October 26,1995 Bill’s brother called one of our children and said Bill had committed suicide the night before. He said he thought our family should know about it and that he was alienated from his family and knew Bill had serious problems. He said there would be a graveside service as the obituary later confirmed. Bill’s wife appeared at Eileen’s door that very day and told Eileen (with whom she’d never had a conversation before) that in the spring her two oldest daughters told their mother Bill was sexually abusing them. She threatened Bill with divorce and with going to the police and they separated.

  If these statements were made without the involvement of any "recovered memory" therapists, that would be pretty strong evidence.

[Abulafia]

47 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  When I said the case was getting "weaker and weaker", only meant the what had appeared to be very strong and direct evidence of his guilt seemed to not be so strong and direct in many cases.  Thus it was getting "weaker."  But that didn't mean I thought there was no good evidence against him, or that he was innocent.

The fundamental question for me is what evidence there is against Bill that wasn't revealed after talking to a therapist that believes in "recovered memories"?  

For example, I think this is a key statement.  Marion Smith says:

  If these statements were made without the involvement of any "recovered memory" therapists, that would be pretty strong evidence.

What stood out for me was a general  comment from the prosecutors in the Attorney General's Office (at the end of the Lehi abuse probe).

 

"Prosecutors said that the troubling issue for the attorney general's office was not in determining that sexual abuse of some children had occurred, but rather in proving beyond any reasonable doubt who committed the abuse."’

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/27084/RELIEF-ANGER-GREET-END-OF-LEHI-SEX-ABUSE-PROBE.html

 

[katherine the great]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

No. Not the mother's. Yes his nieces (in law). According to Smith, he allegedly began abusing them sexually when he began dating mother 1. She had always suspected, but they didn't come forward till they were adults themselves. Not unusual for child victims of sexual abuse.  

Okay. So now the abused include his young sisters-in-law along with his children, stepchildren and his nieces.

[Abulafia]

15 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Okay. So now the abused include his young sisters-in-law along with his children, stepchildren and his nieces.

Yeah. People came forward from the Mt Olympus(?) area also to say that he also abused them.  He seems to have been very prolific. Seems like it was normalised behaviour for him, from childhood onwards.  

[katherine the great]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Yeah. People came forward from the Mt Olympus(?) area also to say that he also abused them.  He seems to have been very prolific. Seems like it was normalised behaviour for him, from childhood onwards.  

Hmm. Mt Olympus is an upscale Salt Lake neighborhood--maybe where he grew up (its not close to Bountiful.)

[Abulafia]

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Hmm. Mt Olympus is an upscale Salt Lake neighborhood--maybe where he grew up (its not close to Bountiful.)

Ah ok.  I know where he went to school etc...but don't want to post that information.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

What stood out for me was a general  comment from the prosecutors in the Attorney General's Office (at the end of the Lehi abuse probe).

 

"Prosecutors said that the troubling issue for the attorney general's office was not in determining that sexual abuse of some children had occurred, but rather in proving beyond any reasonable doubt who committed the abuse."’

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/27084/RELIEF-ANGER-GREET-END-OF-LEHI-SEX-ABUSE-PROBE.html

 

I think you're in a feedback loop now.

Even after 19 pages of discussing this, you appear to have absolutely no understanding of what was happening with Barbara Snow at that time. 

Please, if you only do one thing today, read this paper:

Wrongful Conviction and the Moral Panic About Organized Child Abuse: National and International Perspectives

It lays out the worldwide context to what Barbara Snow was doing in Utah at the time.

But since I'm assuming a lot of people won't read the whole thing, here is an important point to that hasn't been brought up yet:

Quote

Although a number of suspects confessed initially to the accusations against them, these confessions were not supported by evidence. There are many reasons why suspects might confess falsely to a crime they did not commit. These reasons can include torture, brutality, threats, fear, fatigue, and deception by the interrogator (Huff, Rattner et al. Grometstein Moral panic about organized child abuse Page 18 of 34 1996; Huff 2004). The chances of a false confession are increased when there is great community pressure for the solving of a crime (Huff, Rattner et al. 1996); in a moral panic, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is often suspended. To this we may add that defendants who demand a trial of the charges against them may suffer the so - called trial penalty, in which a convicted defendant is sentenced more harshly because he or she is viewed as refusing to take responsibility through a plea of guilty (Givelber 2000). In the organized abuse cases, convicted defendants in the United States were sentenced to such long sentences (e.g., 165 years in the case of Frank Fuster, Country Walk Babysitting, in Miami, Florida), that other defense lawyers routinely urged their clients to plead guilty. In the climate of public opinion prevailing during a moral panic, even an upright citizen with an unblemished record facing such heinous charges can expect a harsh response from judge and jury.

(Emphasis added)

 

The paper also points out the unreliability of medical examinations for abuse, which could call into question Marion Smith's claims that a doctor had verified the abuse.  She says:

Quote

Eileen’s children were taken to Dr. Martin Palmer at Primary Hospital for verification of the abuse and to assess medical harm. Dr. Palmer found no question of their abuse. Even with his expertise and extreme kindness to children, our grandchildren were angry about the examinations.

This part gets a little uncomfortable, but before accepting Marion's claim of medical verification, we should know exactly what test Dr. Palmer used.  This should surprise no one at this point, but the test that was commonly used at the time is now discredited as a test for child abuse, as explained here, so claims of medical corroboration for any abuse in that era should be treated skeptically unless further details are provided.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by cinepro

[Abulafia]

Cinepro. Please... Give me the benefit of the doubt on this. I've read that article already. It's in the timeline. 

[Abulafia]

From the timeline.

 

2006 September 15th, Randall Grometstein, J.D., Ph.D. Article in ‘Wrongful Conviction:International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice,’ “Wrongful Conviction and the Moral Panic About Organized Child Abuse: National and International Perspectives”

[ http://ascdwc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/images_grometstein1.pdf ]

 

it was one of a number of responses to the time period.  Massimo Introvigne also covers the response.

[provoman]

Not sure if it has been discussed, and I do not have a copy of the Miles' response.

But I think thr law the plaintiffs are relying does not apply. As I understand it, the law that allows child victims to sue as adults does not apply in this situation; as I understand it there might be a casr about at the application of the law

[Rain]

On 10/16/2018 at 7:38 AM, Abulafia said:

The Dr at the Primary Care Hospital confirmed the children had been sexually abused. The Perpetrator was diagnosed as a paedophile. The perpetrator allegedly admitted to abusing the children. You don't think he deserved some form of church discipline?

Not that it really matters - I'm unaware of a "Primary Care Hospital" in the area. The one quote I saw said "Primary Hospital".  This is probably supposed to be "Primary Children's Hospital". An assumption on my part and I am unwilling to sift through things to find if it is accurate or not.

 

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Not that it really matters - I'm unaware of a "Primary Care Hospital" in the area. The one quote I saw said "Primary Hospital".  This is probably supposed to be "Primary Children's Hospital". An assumption on my part and I am unwilling to sift through things to find if it is accurate or not.

 

Thanks. I'll check that one.

[Abulafia]

Ok. Got it.

 

https://intermountainhealthcare.org/locations/primary-childrens-hospital/

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

Not sure if it has been discussed, and I do not have a copy of the Miles' response.

But I think thr law the plaintiffs are relying does not apply. As I understand it, the law that allows child victims to sue as adults does not apply in this situation; as I understand it there might be a casr about at the application of the law

Interesting.  Thankyou.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

Not sure if it has been discussed, and I do not have a copy of the Miles' response.

But I think thr law the plaintiffs are relying does not apply. As I understand it, the law that allows child victims to sue as adults does not apply in this situation; as I understand it there might be a casr about at the application of the law

There is a four year limit after learning of abuse (I assume this means someone educates them that behaviour was abusive and criminal and not normal parenting or whatever as can often occur; I have a relative who kept saying a grandparent treated them a certain way out of love until asked if he would ever treat his own children that way for any reason...he was horrified at the thought which made him realize it was abuse, if he could document that change of understanding I am assuming that would qualify as well as times when children were too young to remember and others such a siblings tell them what happened) or remembering it, if I understand the law correctly.

This doesn't seem to apply in this case though.  There was a toddler, iirc, but given the description of consistent family discussion over the years and decades, the books written by the grandmother, it seems highly unlikely they would have only found out about the alleged abuse within four years.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a four year limit after learning of abuse (I assume this means someone educates them that behaviour was abusive and criminal and not normal parenting or whatever as can often occur; I have a relative who kept saying a grandparent treated them a certain way out of love until asked if he would ever treat his own children that way for any reason...he was horrified at the thought which made him realize it was abuse, if he could document that change of understanding I am assuming that would qualify as well as times when children were too young to remember and others such a siblings tell them what happened) or remembering it, if I understand the law correctly.

This doesn't seem to apply in this case though.  There was a toddler, iirc, but given the description of consistent family discussion over the years and decades, the books written by the grandmother, it seems highly unlikely they would have only found out about the alleged abuse within four years.

It is my understanding that the recent law allows for chikdhood victims to file suits against family members only; not nonfamily enablers or nonfamily perp.