Abulafia Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 Calm, the evidence is in the suit. Scroll down to the exhibits in the 2nd wife's case.
Calm Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, changed said: It is not just Dr. Snow (trigger warning) http://www.restoreourhumanity.org/files/ABlipHere.pdf Dr. Stout, Dr. Mason Redd, Dr. Martin Palmer, Dr. Paul Whitehead, Dr. Joanna McManimen, Dr. Carlos Roby, Dr. Donald Doty, A quick search shows this "Eileen called Barbara Snow who made appointments for all the children for the next day." Apparently the children all saw Snow first in the case involving the Mileses. Even if they saw multiple therapists afterwards, those first sessions may have created false memories and/or tainted comments. Again, I am not saying there was no abuse; I am saying the primary involvement of Snow without any records or even notes of these sessions makes it likely impossible to separate out what the kids would have said on their own and what they said due to her influence. Edited October 4, 2018 by Calm 2
Calm Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Abulafia said: Calm, the evidence is in the suit. Scroll down to the exhibits in the 2nd wife's case. Can you not quote it? If you can't, please state specifics briefly (or link back to where you did if you already have and put a note that you can't copy/paste so future readers understand why you can't provide the specific references/ quotes as required by CFR rules). Thanks. Edited October 4, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Abulafia said: Calm, I'm not talking about a sex ring. I am saying that the medical evidence pretty much proves these kids were assaulted by the perpetrator [their father and step father in the case of his 2nd marriage]. Whether the Miles were involved or not. These kids were abused by the father and that abuse was ignored and covered up. Given it is the Mileses that are being sued, it makes a difference in talking about the evidence. Edited October 4, 2018 by Calm 1
Calm Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) The exhibit on page 59 is a medical record from John Hopkins for the father. States the father was diagnosed with pedophila. He admitted to some acts of abuse out of the need for control. I don't remember anything that suggests he says he confessed to his bishop or other church leader. There is no mention of the Mileses or any type of s-x ring parties, nothing to indicate anyone else was involved in the abuse. ------- This does raise the question as to what information the police had when they dismissed the case for insufficient evidence against the father. ----- As far as the claims of coverup by the Church, there are alleged reports to bishops by kids of abuse and the second mother's alleged experience in trying to get information about his first marriage, so far there is just the allegations in the exhibits. If there are statements from others supporting these claims, I missed them. Not saying this invalidates the claims, just means currently unsubstantiated. Edited October 4, 2018 by Calm 1
Popular Post cinepro Posted October 4, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 4, 2018 14 hours ago, sunstoned said: His story is full of holes. Ford took a polygraph. Kavanaugh would not. Yes, the accusations are credible. As a society, we need to move beyond our belief in the reliability of polygraph tests. Future generations will look at them the way we look at phrenology. Quote The polygraph or so-called "lie detector" test is, as most scientists acknowledge, badly misnamed. It's a detector of autonomic arousal, not of lies. As a consequence, people who become highly aroused in response to the relevant (or "Did you do it?") questions, but not in response to the other questions, will tend to fail the test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that it's really an arousal detector, the polygraph test suffers from a high rate of what psychologists call "false positives" - innocent people whom the test deems guilty. The Polygraph Test Strikes – and Strikes Out – Again After seeing Kavanaugh's testimony, I'm pretty sure I know why he might not want to take a test that interprets "arousal" as "guilt." I'm also pretty sure I know why someone might more easily "pass" a polygraph test when they are accusing someone else of something as opposed to being accused themselves. 12
rongo Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 This was interesting. It connects moral panic, ritual Satanic abuse, mass hysteria, vulnerability of day-care providers to hysteria, Waco, and Brett Kananaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-mass-hysteria-roots/ 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 35 minutes ago, rongo said: This was interesting. It connects moral panic, ritual Satanic abuse, mass hysteria, vulnerability of day-care providers to hysteria, Waco, and Brett Kananaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-mass-hysteria-roots/ A fascinating article! I hadn't known that about Janet Reno. My biggest worry at this point is not that Kavanaugh will not be appointed (I think he will be). What I worry about most is the consequences that will arise from the mass hysteria that has seized the nation once his appointment is confirmed.
Abulafia Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) Calm. Okay. I uploaded the images of Mother 2's testimony. This is core. 1. Mother 2 married the perpetrator [father], and put her own children at risk because she believed he was innocent. No probation, disfellowship, or excommunication. The perpetrator is a lawyer, remember. He's no idiot. This guy is right there marrying into (1st wife) families with connections to the uncle of Joseph Smith, and who have personal friendships with apostles [Neal A Maxwell]. 2. Mother 1 called Mother 2 in 1988, just before the 2nd marriage and told her Perp was a pedophile and had abused the children together with the Miles and another adult. Mother 2 had none of it. For goodness sake, if that were true he would have been excommunicated. It's all lies. Perp denies any wrongdoing and he is active in the church. She marries him, unknowingly putting her own children at risk. 3. Perp explained he had received a blessing by Maxwell or "the apostle" (who is that? Do we know? Might have missed it) and was told "heavens were closed" as it relates to allegations of child abuse. Perp has full weight of apostles behind him. That's some pretty strong *job* references right there. 4. From 1984 to 1990 Mother 2 worked in Church Membership Dept. This is important because she knows how the system worked for church discipline. 5. In 1989 (continued below) Edited October 5, 2018 by Abulafia
Abulafia Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 5. In 1989 Mother 2 learned that Mother 1 obtained a temple divorce without following proper protocols. Mother 2 is perplexed and starts asking questions of apostles secretaries, etc. Then gets told by her bishop that Maxwell has called and told her she needs to stop asking questions. 6. In 1990 she receives a letter from the first presidency saying her membership is at risk. 7. In 1995 she learns perp had been abusing her children but committed suicide before any prosecution could take place. So here's my questions. 1.Why was the perpetrator protected when the abuse of Mother 1s children happened without question. 2. Were others being protected? (The Miles) 3. If Perp were prosecuted would he implicate others? 1
Calm Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) Quote 1.Why was the perpetrator protected when the abuse of Mother 1s children happened without question. 2. Were others being protected? (The Miles) 3. If Perp were prosecuted would he implicate others? 1: when was it known the abuse happened without question? There are medical records from his stay prior to his second marriage, but were they shared with the first wife, with any church leaders, or law enforcement before he died? 2: That would appear to be speculation. 3: again speculation Edited October 5, 2018 by Calm
why me Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 10/3/2018 at 9:27 PM, Gray said: Without commenting on this case, do you think all the clergy abuse victims who came forward decades later were just making it up? Don't know. However, it may take more than one to prove a case. Also, there should be proof. Just to make an accusation should not prove guilt. And this is where the problem is now. One must prove that their are innocent of the charge and how is that possible? The US court system is now under threat or we can go back to the witch triais or to France in 1789 where one accusation and the head is gone. 1
why me Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: A fascinating article! I hadn't known that about Janet Reno. My biggest worry at this point is not that Kavanaugh will not be appointed (I think he will be). What I worry about most is the consequences that will arise from the mass hysteria that has seized the nation once his appointment is confirmed. The Dems have become chairman Mao's red gurards. The red guards would drag teachers and professors out of class, beat them and perhaps kill them based on an accusation. We might not be seeing the killings but we are seeing other forms of abuse based on emotion. And the hysteria of the red guards in the US media as they accuse and accuse, instigating harassment. @why me tone down the politics or you'll be banned from the thread. ~Mods 4
changed Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Abulafia said: So here's my questions. 1.Why was the perpetrator protected I agree. Why was the perpetrator protected? In my case, the pedophile problems were known by the church as they had: ended the abusers first temple marriage abuser was attending LDS addiction recovery groups and still, the abuser was given prominent leadership callings, and callings working with children. 2nd wife was not warned of his problems, assumed that because he had a temple recommend, had leadership callings, that he was a safe person to marry. The abuse went on years and years and years. In my case, we were lucky - the abuser videotaped what he did so there was no question of guilt - a year to go through file after file trying to identify kids from 18+ years of files... year after year, calling after calling, child after child ↑ this is what I personally experienced dealing with. The abuser is now in jail for the rest of his life without parole. The church did NOTHING to top the abuse. NOTHING. His employer turned him in, NOT the church. It appears the church has done NOTHING in quite a few other cases as well. There are mandatory reporting laws for abuse involving children. Confidentiality applies for adult interviews - but I am pretty sure they do NOT apply when it comes to reporting abuse of children. Edited October 5, 2018 by changed 1
Gray Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 10/3/2018 at 4:04 PM, SteveO said: So were Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Leslie Millwee part of that 5% of fake allegations? Is that why Bill was elected to a second term? 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. What a joke and a sham this all is. What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? CFR that I have ever defended Bill Clinton's behavior or retract. Wattabout wattabout wattabout. Total straw man. 1
Gray Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 10/3/2018 at 3:22 PM, bluebell said: 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. The only way to stay neutral is if you don't care either way. Generally all of us evaluate the credibility of each side and have an opinion of guilt or innocence. Even if we claim our standard is presumption of innocence, I think that's probably a cover for a belief that the rapist in question (an perjurer in fact) is actually innocent
Gray Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 10/3/2018 at 3:21 PM, 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. But there isn't a complete absence of evidence. So it's certainly appropriate for anyone to evaluate both sides and take a stance based on likely guilt or likely innocent.
ALarson Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 On 10/4/2018 at 6:17 AM, Abulafia said: Calm, the evidence is in the suit. Scroll down to the exhibits in the 2nd wife's case. I don't know if this has been mentioned or discussed yet on this thread (I haven't read all 5 pages), but I'm reading elsewhere that there was a book written about this case. The title of it is Paperdolls. Have you read it, Abulafia (or anyone else who can comment on it)? Here's a link to it: https://www.amazon.com/Paperdolls-Healing-Sexual-Mormon-Neighborhoods/dp/B000QBPWBK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 5, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: The only way to stay neutral is if you don't care either way. Generally all of us evaluate the credibility of each side and have an opinion of guilt or innocence. Even if we claim our standard is presumption of innocence, I think that's probably a cover for a belief that the rapist in question (an perjurer in fact) is actually innocent That may be true for you, but I don't believe that's true for everyone. 5
changed Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: I don't know if this has been mentioned or discussed yet on this thread (I haven't read all 5 pages), but I'm reading elsewhere that there was a book written about this case. The title of it is Paperdolls. Have you read it, Abulafia (or anyone else who can comment on it)? Here's a link to it: https://www.amazon.com/Paperdolls-Healing-Sexual-Mormon-Neighborhoods/dp/B000QBPWBK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 From the comments section: "The leader of one of the sex rings in the Bountiful neighborhood (exact neighborhood location not mentioned in the book but I am a friend of one of the abused girls) was the "apostle's daughter" with her "husband involved in banking". This would have been Kathleen Hinckley and Alan Barnes of Barnes banking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_B._Hinckley ... Her first husband, Alan Barnes, died in 2001... just... wow.
juliann Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Abulafia said: 5. In 1989 Mother 2 learned that Mother 1 obtained a temple divorce without following proper protocols. Mother 2 is perplexed and starts asking questions of apostles secretaries, etc. Then gets told by her bishop that Maxwell has called and told her she needs to stop asking questions. 6. In 1990 she receives a letter from the first presidency saying her membership is at risk. 7. In 1995 she learns perp had been abusing her children but committed suicide before any prosecution could take place. So here's my questions. 1.Why was the perpetrator protected when the abuse of Mother 1s children happened without question. 2. Were others being protected? (The Miles) 3. If Perp were prosecuted would he implicate others? Thanks for the info, I've had an extraordinarily busy month and can't spend time on this. There is a copy of this letter, right? There are all kinds of what should have been done, but it looks like to me the perp was never caught. My understanding of church discipline is that without a confession, there does need to be a legal verdict. Now, anyway. But there should have been more support for this family, obviously. So I take it that the complaint is that Elder Nelson knew his daughter was a pedophile but protected her by not punishing this guy? I hope members are becoming more educated that church standing doesn't mean much when it comes to scammers and criminals, I had to learn the hard way. 2
changed Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, juliann said: I hope members are becoming more educated that church standing doesn't mean much when it comes to scammers and criminals, I had to learn the hard way. Judas was an apostle... what are we to learn of that? 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him. 21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? 23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. Edited October 5, 2018 by changed
ALarson Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, changed said: From the comments section: "The leader of one of the sex rings in the Bountiful neighborhood (exact neighborhood location not mentioned in the book but I am a friend of one of the abused girls) was the "apostle's daughter" with her "husband involved in banking". This would have been Kathleen Hinckley and Alan Barnes of Barnes banking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_B._Hinckley ... Her first husband, Alan Barnes, died in 2001... just... wow. Wow....I didn't read that! So maybe this is a different case? Alan Barnes is the one who confessed to the FBI about the Olympic bribery check he signed (iirc). He passed away right after that (I think suddenly of a heart attack). I believe she's remarried to Robert Walker (who was called to be the SLC temple president with Kathleen who served as the matron). (Hope I'm remember that right!)
Abulafia Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, ALarson said: I don't know if this has been mentioned or discussed yet on this thread (I haven't read all 5 pages), but I'm reading elsewhere that there was a book written about this case. The title of it is Paperdolls. Have you read it, Abulafia (or anyone else who can comment on it)? Here's a link to it: https://www.amazon.com/Paperdolls-Healing-Sexual-Mormon-Neighborhoods/dp/B000QBPWBK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 I haven't, but I have read the 2004 report written by Marion Smith, the grandmother of the victims.
changed Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 30 minutes ago, ALarson said: Wow....I didn't read that! So maybe this is a different case? Alan Barnes is the one who confessed to the FBI about the Olympic bribery check he signed (iirc). He passed away right after that (I think suddenly of a heart attack). I believe she's remarried to Robert Walker (who was called to be the SLC temple president with Kathleen who served as the matron). (Hope I'm remember that right!) Yea, the Olympic stuff is in that comment as well... troubling trends.
Recommended Posts