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

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

But often the opposite is true depending on the accused.  Few want to believe a respectable or seemingly typical man or woman is capable of horrific behaviour and so many find it easier to dismiss the accusations as the result of a troubled mind.

-------

Quote

Allegations rejected 30 years ago by multiple law enforcement investigations 

I don't find decades old allegations inherently troubling in the sense of harder to believe they could have happened given it can take time for victims to feel safe enough, confident enough in themselves to come forward though of course the time span makes them harder to prove or disprove which is very unfortunate, but not imo sufficient to ignore them.  I do find allegations that were seriously investigated (indicated by multiple departments being involved) at that time resurfacing problematic, especially in the context of 'celebrity '  associations.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours 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.

These types of allegations  are pretty notorious for often being false, especially if connected to therapists who deal in recovered memories.

It would be useful to separate out types of allegations when using stats rather than just dumping every type in the same category, but that is probably not possible at this time.

Quote

Investigators at the city and county level at the time found no evidence of a Bountiful sex abuse ring allegedly involving the Mileses. A state investigation also found no evidence to corroborate more than 220 claims of ritual sex abuse in Utah that mirrored a national trend of accusations later attributed to the counseling techniques of recovered-memory therapy, a practice now widely rejected by research psychologists because of the possibility of planted memories...

The Mileses' attorney, Jim Jardine, said the allegations arose from the work of a "controversial" therapist, Barbara Snow, who was investigated for "planting" false memories in patients, which she denied

Have there ever been sex abuse rings allegations that have been investigated by multiple agencies that have been dismissed only later to be found out as accurate?

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 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: 

"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

A legal consideration which has nothing to do with current events. But if this is your standard, you must presume that all victims who come forward are lying or mistaken unless proven otherwise, yes?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

What climate would that be?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 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

5% is awfully low, especially since it's becoming a thing now on the political right to presume all rape accusations leveled against conservatives are some kind of trick. Last year the American right was so concerned about women being attacked in bathrooms. This year they're concerned that women can't be trusted to tell the truth if they're attacked in a bathroom.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

On the floor laughing. The accusations are credible if I am blind, deaf, and dumb and only then. Let's stop with the propaganda. Yes, he attempted to rape me when I was 15, no 18, no, well I cannot remember. Well, it was very close to the club. Well, not really close. Well, it was between my house and the club. There were four guys that raped me. Well, no it was two, Well, no it was really three guys and another girl. However, NO ONE can who was supped to be in attendance to the party can support her claims. I can draw a floor plan of the house, but I just cannot tell you which house I went to. I remember this perfectly, except I don't know when, I don't know with whom, and I don't know where.  Yes, really - they are credible to only those who ignore the facts. 

This is disingenuous and dirty. You're replaying Trump's vile victim blaming performance from yesterday. Only last week he was saying she was credible. All facts that have come to light since then have contradicted Kavanaugh's portrayal of himself.

[rongo]

Just now, Gray said:

What climate would that be?

Universities, for one thing. Conservative speakers have been physically not allowed to speak because of violent protestors, and administrations have done nothing to enforce their lip-service free speech policies. Or disciplined disruptors for violating school rules. This is having a snowballing effect, encouraging more violent disruption and more incidence. To name one example.

The climate is such that I believe it's only going to get worse. This is to replace Kennedy. How do you think antifa and Democrats will behave when they're replacing Ginsburg? They're going to go bananas!

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

These types of allegations are pretty notorious for being false:

Have there ever been sex abuse rings allegations that have been investigated by multiple agencies that have been dismissed only later to be found out as accurate?

Accusations of the type in the OP? Yes. But the OP was merely using that as a spring board to talk about Kavanaugh, which is what I was talking about as well.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

But often the opposite is true depending on the accused.  Few want to believe a respectable or seemingly typical man or woman is capable of horrific behaviour and so many find it easier to dismiss the accusations as the result of a troubled mind.

Very true.  I think that's why we see these kinds of issues often fall along party or gender lines.  If all things are equal (if the accusation is as easy to believe as it is to dismiss), then people will usually just believe which ever side they have most in common with.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

But if this is your standard, you must presume that all victims who come forward are lying or mistaken unless proven otherwise, yes?

Absolutely. "Unless proven otherwise" meaning corroboration and evidence. In the complete absence of that, then the accused must be assumed to be innocent, no matter who the accuser and accused are. Otherwise, we live in an anarchical, chaotic society outside of the rule of law. 

The same applies in non-court settings, too. It is a sound principle that would protect me and you, too, if falsely accused. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

A legal consideration which has nothing to do with current events. But if this is your standard, you must presume that all victims who come forward are lying or mistaken unless proven otherwise, yes?

Is this really are only option?  Either we believe someone is guilty of sexual assault before that is proven or we believe that all victims are lying or mistaken?  I think the best option is just to stay neutral unless it's something the directly affects us.

[changed]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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

and happens pretty frequently.  I'm just starting my "Safe Colleges" mandatory training.  20% of female students are sexually assaulted while in college, 32,000 pregnancies/year in US from rape, I could go on... it is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with.

[Gray]

Just now, rongo said:

Universities, for one thing. Conservative speakers have been physically not allowed to speak because of violent protestors, and administrations have done nothing to enforce their lip-service free speech policies. Or disciplined disruptors for violating school rules. This is having a snowballing effect, encouraging more violent disruption and more incidence. To name one example.

The climate is such that I believe it's only going to get worse. This is to replace Kennedy. How do you think antifa and Democrats will behave when they're replacing Ginsburg? They're going to go bananas!

It's called active measures. stoked on both sides by unfriendly actors from Russia, or paid by Russia, or US information terrorists adopting Russia's strategies.

Antifa is mainly Russian false flag stuff intended to rile up the right. The alt right is also a creation of Russia, but on the right they actually found true believers who will show up at these things. Still not that many, but more than on the left. Enough to cause murder and mayhem, at least.

 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Quote

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: 

"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.

A legal consideration which has nothing to do with current events.

If someone were to come along and accuse you of being a child molester, how would you respond?  Would you expect others to do take the accusation as evidence of itself?  Would you be okay with that?

Quote

But if this is your standard, you must presume that all victims who come forward are lying or mistaken unless proven otherwise, yes?

"All victims" presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

I do not give an accusation of sexual assault undue credence.  I would take such a claim seriously, but I would not reflexively and automatically presume it to be accurate and correct in all respects.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Absolutely. "Unless proven otherwise" meaning corroboration and evidence. In the complete absence of that, then the accused must be assumed to be innocent, no matter who the accuser and accused are. Otherwise, we live in an anarchical, chaotic society outside of the rule of law. 

The same applies in non-court settings, too. It is a sound principle that would protect me and you, too, if falsely accused. 

It's a standard that actually ONLY applies to court settings. It's a nonsensical standard outside of a courtroom especially if there are credibility reasons to favor one part over another.

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

Ff someone were to come along and accuse you of being a child molester, how would you respond?  Would you expect others to do take the accusation as evidence of itself?  Would you be okay with that?

"All victims" presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

No one is saying that an accusation alone is sufficient evidence.

 

Just now, smac97 said:

I do not give an accusation of sexual assault undue credence.  I would take such a claim seriously, but I would not reflexively and automatically presume it to be accurate and correct in all respects.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you presume the accused is innocent, the accuser can only be lying or mistaken. You can't have it both ways.

[Duncan]

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-media-inquires-on-lawsuit-filing

 

this came out, no names though

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

5% is awfully low,

I don't think you would be so dismissive if you or someone you cared about were one of the one in twenty falsely-accused persons.

Have you ever heard of VanDyke Perry?

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

especially since it's becoming a thing now on the political right to presume all rape accusations leveled against conservatives are some kind of trick. Last year the American right was so concerned about women being attacked in bathrooms. This year they're concerned that women can't be trusted to tell the truth if they're attacked in a bathroom.

Again, from the article I quoted previously:

Quote

If a prosecutor declines to pursue a case, does that mean the alleged victim filed a proven false claim? Very rarely. Instead, it usually means that the prosecutor doesn’t believe he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If a judge tosses a sexual-harassment lawsuit at summary judgment — or if a civil jury rules against a sexual-harassment plaintiff — does that mean she filed a proven false claim? Very rarely. It instead means that the judge found the allegations insufficient as a matter of law or that the jury found they were not supported by adequate evidence.

These outcomes don’t mean that the allegations are false. They don’t mean that they are true. They simply mean that the evidence didn’t meet necessary thresholds.

For example, in one of the key studies that the National Sexual Violence Resource Center relied on, researchers classified as false only 5.9 percent of cases — but noted that 44.9 percent of cases where classified as “Case did not proceed.” The category was defined as follows:

This classification was applied if the report of a sexual assault did not result in a referral for prosecution or disciplinary action because of insufficient evidence or because the victim withdrew from the process or was unable to identify the perpetrator or because the victim mislabeled the incident (e.g., gave a truthful account of the incident, but the incident did not meet the legal elements of the crime of sexual assault). [Emphasis added.]

There is absolutely no way to know how many of the claims in that broad category were actually true or likely false. We simply know that the relevant decision-makers did not deem them to be provably true. Yet there are legions of people who glide right past the realities of our legal system and instead consider every claim outside those rare total exonerations to be true. According to this view, the justice system fails everyone else.

What portion of that 44.9% are "false?"  We don't know.

We need to approach these things seriously and soberly.  And dispassionately.  And based on the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 3, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very true.  I think that's why we see these kinds of issues often fall along party or gender lines.  If all things are equal (if the accusation is as easy to believe as it is to dismiss), then people will usually just believe which ever side they have most in common with.

Something interesting I saw was in a discussion about the "gender gap" in who believes Kavanaugh vs. who believes Ford. Men believe him 40-35%, while women believe her 37-26%. Where it gets interesting is in looking at the other "gaps." All people who attend church at least monthly believe him 42-29%, while non-attenders believe her 40-29%. So, there is also a "religion gap." 

Marital status? Those who are married or widowed believe him 42-33%. Divorced, never married, or cohabiting believe her 39-22% (marriage gap). 

Overlap between categories? Married and widowed women support confirmation, 36-31. Other women oppose him, 42-15 percent. Among women, then, there’s a "marriage gap" of 21 points.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1519Y18/type/day/dates/20180801-20181001/collapsed/true

I think this is a litmus test more of values and religiosity than it is of gender or party affiliation, I think. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one is saying that an accusation alone is sufficient evidence.

Actually, I think the inference is there.

Moreover, the accusation itself is not evidence for itself.  You seem to be suggesting it is.  I find that deeply problematic.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you presume the accused is innocent, the accuser can only be lying or mistaken. You can't have it both ways.

Or deluded.  Or some combination of the three.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

Idaho attorney Craig Vernon filed the complaint three days before the church's semi-annual general conference, alleging a coverup by the church. Vernon also represents McKenna Denson in another high-profile lawsuit against the church....

Investigators at the city and county level found no evidence of the alleged Bountiful s-x abuse ring.

David Jordan, an attorney assisting the church in this matter, said he has declarations under oath from the lead investigators and prosecutors who examined claims of two alleged s-x rings in the Mueller Park neighborhood in Bountiful. They say church officials did not try to shape the investigation....

Then-Bountiful Police Det. Diana Stevens said no church officials attempted to interfere with the criminal investigations.

Brian Namba, the Davis County deputy attorney, said no church representative "attempted to limit or interfere with the county's investigation or prosecutorial decisions."

George, the Salt Lake County investigator, and Leslie Lewis, a deputy in the Salt Lake County Attorney’s office at the time and a future Third District Court judge, also said no church officials attempted to influence their work.

George said they found no evidence of a child s-x ab-se ring in the investigation involving the Mileses. The declarations made by him and Lewis indicated that when they sifted the evidence in their investigation of the plaintiffs' father's conduct with his children, it left questions but was insufficient for prosecution.

"The evidence concerning (the plaintiffs' father) was conflicting and inconclusive and, ultimately, the Salt Lake County Attorney’s Office determined not to prosecute him," George wrote.

 

Is there any evidence of the plaintiffs going after the father of the plaintiffs first, especially given the allegation he abused additional children where the Miles were not involved?  If not, the timing ( three days before conference) and the claim of coverup by the Church is problematic for me.  Justice seems better served by establishing the most likely crimes first as well as demonstrating a possible reason for a coverup. If that can be demonstrated, then take it to the next step.

Otherwise it looks like an attempt to get the Church to pay up to make it go away at this point.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

You read me correctly. 

Furthermore, I see a lot of statistics being thrown up, like only 1%, 2%, 5% etc.. To me it doesn't matter if even 1% of the accusations are false, I see well 1% is true then. I don't disagree there are true accusations, false accusations, or even assaults that happened that were not reported. Some are true, even if just 1%

[clarkgoble]

2 hours 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.

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.

Edited October 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I think this is a litmus test more of values and religiosity than it is of gender or party affiliation, I think. 

I think you need to demonstrate these are not typical breakdowns for such accusations in general first.

It may be that religious people have a harder time believing an apparently respectable and religious person can act in a such despicable way, including lying about it.  They may be more comfortable believing a victim is emotionally troubled but not as a result of physical assault.  Women may naturally identify with victims, especially other women while men may have greater worries about being falsely accused than women and therefore consider that as a greater possibility than women generally do.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, 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.

The best analysis I saw put it between 2 and 8 %.  I wouldn't describe that as rare***, even uncommon is pushing it.  However, describing false accusations as common or probable is definitely inaccurate in my view as that suggests it approaches majority.  If 5% or less, it is not rightly described probable imo.

***A "rare" disease is defined as 1 in 1500 in the US, for example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_disease

From Clark's link of most cited article (I can't copy it , so must depend on paraphrase), it appears the conclusion is no conclusion can be currently drawn as too many methodological problems and inconsistencies of definitions.  Hopefully with the greater attention on sexual assault, good research on false allegations and how to better identify them will be forthcoming.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm