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

[Kenngo1969]

A common refrain when people opine on guilt in cases such as this is, "So what?  We're not in a court of law.  The same standards don't apply in the court of public opinion, on message boards, and so on."  But jurors aren't selected in a vacuum.  They read many of the same newspapers, watch many of the same newscasts, listen to many of the same radio broadcasts or podcasts, frequent the same message boards, and so on, that anyone else does.  In that light, given some of the things she has said on this thread, if you want to believe the protestations of the Abulafias of the world that, "No, really.  I can be an impartial juror, and I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other regarding the guilt or innocence of the people involved," go ahead.  That's your business.

As for me, since my own reputation has been shot to hell by things that are similar to what has been taking place on this thread, so I think the "innocent until proven guilty" standard has utility even outside of a courtroom, but I recognize that there's no reason why a bunch of anonymous Internet posters should give a damn about that, so ...  

Edited November 6, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

So where's the presumption of innocence when it comes to Barbara Snow, Cinepro? 

"Hell-o-o-o!!!  McFlyyyyy?!!!!!"    There were a bunch of witnesses to what Barbara Snow did!!!!!

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

A common refrain when people opine on guilt in cases such as this is, "So what?  We're not in a court of law.  The same standards don't apply in the court of public opinion, on message boards, and so on."  But jurors aren't selected in a vacuum.  They read many of the same newspapers, watch many of the same newscasts, listen to many of the same radio broadcasts or podcasts, frequent the same message boards, and so on, that anyone else does.  In that light, given some of the things she has said on this thread, if you want to believe the protestations of the Abulafias of the world that, "No, really.  I can be an impartial juror, and I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other regarding the guilt or innocence of the people involved," go ahead.  That's your business.

What you did was wrong, Kenngo.  You have no idea what took place regarding the trial in the past where she was on the jury.  You were judgmental and insulting with your questions and insinuations.  If you had simply stuck to the case that is being discussed, she has been very honest about where she stands.  She fully admits her feelings and opinions on this case and even has stated she wouldn't want to be on this jury.  

Hey...just apologize....and move on.  We've all misspoken or over stepped at times.   Maybe at some point, she will share some details about her other trial and you'll learn more regarding what took place with that one (another topic for another thread possibly ).

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Hell-o-o-o!!!  McFlyyyyy?!!!!!"    There were a bunch of witnesses to what Barbara Snow did!!!!!

Actually, there are a bunch of witnesses to what the Miles allegedly did.  You just don't believe them.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

But this case is being tried in the court of public opinion and in a very real sense,  it was the Miles lawyers who made a strategic decision to go public with this.  Craig Vernon did not make the names public. 

Really?  I will go back and read, but the suit was filed publicly which means that it was public record.  That's Vernon's doing, not Miles' lawyers.  

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Just a point of interest, Evan Anderson is a member of the Satanic Temple.  

That seems to be a point of considerable interest to you.   Why do you think it is relevant to the FOI requests that the Licensing Board released?  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

So where's the presumption of innocence when it comes to Barbara Snow, Cinepro? 

For me it left when she admitted to the facts in a signed Consent Order and Decree.  

[kllindley]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What you did was wrong, Kenngo.  You have no idea what took place regarding the trial in the past where she was on the jury.  You were judgmental and insulting with your questions and insinuations.  If you had simply stuck to the case that is being discussed, she has been very honest about where she stands.  She fully admits her feelings and opinions on this case and even has stated she wouldn't want to be on this jury.  

Hey...just apologize....and move on.  We've all misspoken or over stepped at times.   Maybe at some point, she will share some details about her other trial and you'll learn more regarding what too place with that one (another topic for another thread possibly ).

 

Honestly, does the same standard of conduct apply not to Abulafia?  I don't know how Kenngo's comment was any more insulting than her attack on my professional integrity or her questioning the well-being of vulnerable children working with me.   Why did you not call her out on that?  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Honestly, does the same standard of conduct apply not to Abulafia?  I don't know how Kenngo's comment was any more insulting than her attack on my professional integrity or her questioning the well-being of vulnerable children working with me.   Why did you not call her out on that?  

I would have if I'd seen it (I admit that I haven't been on here much and have not read every single post on this thread)....if what you say is true.  Can you link to it?  

I really do not like any type of personal attack on anyone here and would have spoken up if I'd seen it.  I know I've slipped at times too and have really tried to apologize when I do.    

Either way, Kenngo should not have taken it to a personal and insulting level (when it was about an entirely different case from the past that we do not have details on).

Edited November 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Really?  I will go back and read, but the suit was filed publicly which means that it was public record.  That's Vernon's doing, not Miles' lawyers.  

I believe I have this right. The suit was filed by the alleged victims lawyers, but was anonymous. The Miles filed the motion to dismiss the same day as a counter measure. They did so openly and outed themselves as a specific tactic. It wouldn't have been done lightly.

[Abulafia]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Honestly, does the same standard of conduct apply not to Abulafia?  I don't know how Kenngo's comment was any more insulting than her attack on my professional integrity or her questioning the well-being of vulnerable children working with me.   Why did you not call her out on that?  

I did so on the basis that you judged the victims witness to be without merit on the assumption that the type of abuse they describe in the suit categorically doesn't happen.  I don't even know what you do for a living. I don't know what your profession is. 

[Abulafia]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That seems to be a point of considerable interest to you.   Why do you think it is relevant to the FOI requests that the Licensing Board released?  

I didn't include the information in the timeline, almost all of which can be gleaned elsewhere, because they are who they are and their motives for so aggressively condemning the work of therapists even today, need to be questioned.  I read up on the movement and decided best not to go there.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One weighs all the evidence with the default presumption that the accused is not guilty. That’s how it’s supposed to work. One who cannot muster an initial presumption of innocence is not qualified to be a juror. It’s that simple. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with having studied a case and coming to a decision before being called as a jury member as long as you don't pretend to be ignorant and/or impartial whenasked to serve as a jury member.  We are not supposed to live our lives uneducated about the news just in case we get called up for jury duty for a particular case.

And just because we might study and make decisions in some cases doesn't disqualify us for all cases as there are likely many that aren't even publicized so even the most diligent news fanatic could avoid awareness of it.

This board is not a court nor is it anything resembling a trial.  We are simply sharing information and ideas and debating, there is no reason why Abulifia has to presume innocence after being exposed to any information.  In a debate, no one expects presumption of innocence or benefit of the doubt for the decisions and actions one is debating.

It is ridiculous, imo, to extrapolate courtroom behaviour from board behaviour.  Two very different venues that serve very different purposes.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Just a point of interest, Evan Anderson is a member of the Satanic Temple.  

But he is not the source of the documents he requested and posted unless you believe there is a possibility he forged them.  I believe someone mentioned independent confirmation of the attack by Snow on her relative's property, etc.  There was independent reporting by the two people witnessing an interview where Snow was inappropriately aggressive (she uses the term aggressive to describe herself according to the Chicago Reader iirc).

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

21 hours ago, Abulafia said:

What this does highlight,  and maybe a lawyer can comment, is how likely it would be that a jury could be found in Utah that didn't have prior knowledge of the case that could prejudice their judgements either way.

I think it would be very likely.  There are many who did not live in the state at the time (like me) and had little to no exposure when it was happening and there are those who don't pay attention to this type of news.  I normally wouldn't and only have studied it because it is mentioned on the board (watching news is too frustrating for me these days, I don't care enough to be informed in general because I think the info being shared by most news media is crap based on knowing events up close and comparing to what is reported and the only way to get decent news is spend time researching all available information...and most news is not something that impacts my life in such a way to require that level of investment).

There might be a problem with satanic panic knowledge in general since it was national and international.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Just a point of interest, Evan Anderson is a member of the Satanic Temple.  

It sounds bad, but members of the Satanic Temple, in this day and age, are not hood wearing, goat sacrificing, baby eating kinds of people.  They don't even actually believe in satan.  They are just trying to be extreme to get people's attention.  They are atheists.

According to their website:

"The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will. Politically aware, Civic-minded Satanists and allies in The Satanic Temple have publicly opposed The Westboro Baptist Church, advocated on behalf of children in public school to abolish corporal punishment, applied for equal representation where religious monuments are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict women's reproductive autonomy, exposed fraudulent harmful pseudo-scientific practitioners and claims in mental health care, and applied to hold clubs along side other religious after school clubs in schools besieged by proselytizing organizations.

It is the position of The Satanic Temple that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. The Satanist should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.

We believe in the pursuit of knowledge and freedom of Will. We believe in our Seven Tenets:

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I believe I have this right. The suit was filed by the alleged victims lawyers, but was anonymous. The Miles filed the motion to dismiss the same day as a counter measure. They did so openly and outed themselves as a specific tactic. It wouldn't have been done lightly.

That is how I remember it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I didn't include the information in the timeline, almost all of which can be gleaned elsewhere, because they are who they are and their motives for so aggressively condemning the work of therapists even today, need to be questioned.  I read up on the movement and decided best not to go there.

But the FOI requests are not documents that they were involved in producing, they are only reporting them.  The link provided in their work that I posted has no commentary attached to them, but are the original documents.

Should we discount documents that consig posted for the Bishop-Denson case based on any suspicion he might be biased against the Church?  Or is it appropriate to assume that the BYU Police file and Denson draft letter are useful for what they are claimed to be?

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I really do not like any type of personal attack on anyone here and would have spoken up if I'd seen it.  I know I've slipped at times too and have really tried to apologize when I do.    

 

Says he who called me a fool when I stood up for President Hinckley and who never showed any subsequent contrition. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Just to clarify that it was the Hadfield camp (his attorneys) that disapproved of Profita, not Hadfield himself. He had a lot of supporters so any family members, friends, could have employed her. 

Sure, it makes sense that a relative might have employed her, but given there were 40 adults that were accused I don't think it is a given.  

Even so, I was responding directly to the suggestion that she was a relative of Hadfield***.  I think it likely Hadfield's attorneys would know more about her as they likely questioned Hadfield about her.

***your original post

Quote

I'm betting Rikki Regan Profita Hunt was very likely a relative of Alan Hadfield.  

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I would have if I'd seen it (I admit that I haven't been on here much and have not read every single post on this thread)....if what you say is true.  Can you link to it?  

I really do not like any type of personal attack on anyone here and would have spoken up if I'd seen it.  I know I've slipped at times too and have really tried to apologize when I do.    

Either way, Kenngo should not have taken it to a personal and insulting level (when it was about an entirely different case from the past that we do not have details on).

Quote

And as someone who has worked with children all my working life, I wouldn't want you and your attitude any where near a vulnerable child. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71089-lawsuit-re-sex-abuse-allegations-against-daughter-of-pres-nelson-and-her-husband/?do=findComment&comment=1209863244

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I did so on the basis that you judged the victims witness to be without merit on the assumption that the type of abuse they describe in the suit categorically doesn't happen.  I don't even know what you do for a living. I don't know what your profession is. 

I don't think you can demonstrate he stated that type of abuse categorically doesn't happen, I think that is a misinterpretation of his comments. (Though it may depend on how you are defining "type of abuse", physically impossible accusations he would probably categorically deny as I think we all should).

He is, btw, a professional therapist**** unless I have misread his comments.  Your previous post more or less accused him of condemning himself, imo.  I think he was much more limited in his comments than you interpreted him.  He generally is quite cautious and uses credible research to back his opinions on therapy, psychology, etc.

****http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70764-lds-church-donates-25k-to-affirmation-re-suicide-prevention-training/?do=findComment&comment=1209834140

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I did so on the basis that you judged the victims witness to be without merit on the assumption that the type of abuse they describe in the suit categorically doesn't happen.  I don't even know what you do for a living. I don't know what your profession is. 

Please don't accuse me of saying something I did not.  I stated that it was exceptionally unlikely.  I did not state that it never happens.

And you may not remember my profession, but you earlier asked me about my professional experience before that comment and I answered.    

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Says he who called me a fool when I stood up for President Hinckley and who never showed any subsequent contrition. 

I highly doubt I did that exact thing (remind me what that was regarding?  Sounds like a bit of a misrepresentation, but I'll own it if I really did do that!  ). 

But as I stated above, I know that I've not been perfect on here and I honestly do try to apologize if I misspeak (I just did so on the previous page on this thread).

Once again though, that does not excuse the personal attack from Kenngo.    I hope you see that was wrong to do when he has no idea about any of the details of that other case.

Ha...did a search and found what you're referring to:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209849606

Quote

 

Good grief Scott.  You're making a fool of yourself here.  You've been provided link after link proving that this entire couplet was still being taught and expounded upon in lessons (even the very year President Hinckley gave the interview).  He spoke himself about the couplet in General Conference just 3 years prior to the interview (and did give details regarding the teaching).  You state over an over here that you believe Prophets are fallible, but then go to ridiculous lengths to avoid the simple truth that President Hinckley was wrong when he stated that this was no longer taught.

Give it up.  You're wrong here and have been proven wrong with great sources.  Do you really need more? 

I give President Hinckley a pass on this as I think he found himself in a difficult situation.  He had stated in General Confernce that "Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this [the couplet]", so he knew what he may be stepping in if he started more of discussion on it during the interview.  But he was very definitely mistaken that it was no longer taught (and if he didn't remember it was still taught, he had a very short memory because he'd just taught it in conference and hr had to have approved the lesson manual containing teachings regarding it for that very year).

 

 

I'd actually have to revisit that thread to see if I misspoke....I might still believe you were being foolish or making yourself look like a fool    (just teasing a bit!).....

Sorry if I offended you at the time...I really mean that.

Edited November 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

not needed

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Calm