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

[Danzo]

42 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

So, what you are saying is that the church will not take action on child abuse cases unless there is a suit first and Bill Carstensen was proven guilty in a court of law?  Is the same burden of proof as high in other cases of church discipline?  These are sincere questions. 

I really do not think these are sincere questions.  

Do you really want to the church to have it's own police department it's own child protective services?

we tried that once, we called it the inquisition and even though a fun time was had by all, it was eventually decided that it was better for the police an to be run by the state rather than by the church.  

As for burden of proof, most church disciplinary counsel are for items that are perfectly legal (adultery, apostasy) and most rely on a confession. When it comes to contested crimes, the church doesn't have the ability to investigate the way the police do.

We can't subpoena people, can't execute search warrants, can't interrogate witnesses, can't hold people in contempt of court and we don't access to criminal records and fingerprint records.  

I suspect you would not be thrilled if we were given these powers. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Danzo

[changed]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

We can't subpoena people, can't execute search warrants, can't interrogate witnesses, can't hold people in contempt of court and we don't access to criminal records and fingerprint records.  

 

 

What can the church do?

[Danzo]

Just now, changed said:

 

What can the church do?

In these cases not much, unless someone confesses. If they confess they are sent to the police. If they don't it is really hard.

There is not crime investigation unit, and I don't think anyone is seriously advocated that we create one. 

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I really hope you never sit on a jury.   That is a completely awful statement.  this is how innocent people end up in jail.

"someone must of have done it, therefore someone has to go to jail"

 What on earth are you suggesting Danzo? I was responding to rodheadlee who seemed to think I felt all men were guilty simply by virtue of being men.  

The evidence (at least some of it) is in the suit and in Marion Smith's account. The police reports have been lost. 

Yes. I have served as a juror on a similarly horrific child abuse case. It took 3 months,of sifting through police reports, witness testimony, medical reports, family services reports, and so on, along with the judges summing up of the case. We have no statute of limitations on child abuse here in the UK. 12 of us deliberated after hearing 3 months of horrific details, and made our judgment. We did the right thing according to the evidence. 

[changed]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In these cases not much...

and that is the main frustration in these situations... 

People think the church will be a support, a protection, a help - but in reality, when the trial comes and the victim needs real tangible help and protection...

not much is done to help them... 

what they thought was a protection, turns out to be paper walls with no protection at all.

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In these cases not much, unless someone confesses. If they confess they are sent to the police. If they don't it is really hard.

There is not crime investigation unit, and I don't think anyone is seriously advocated that we create one. 

In a recent child abuse case with a currently serving bishop who denied the allegations, the victims were told they needed two to three witnesses. In Bill Carstensen's case he admitted guilt sporadically, there were also multiple children who accused him despite loving him deeply. Does their witness not count?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Abulafia

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

and that is the main frustration in these situations... 

People think the church will be a support, a protection, a help - but in reality, when the trial comes and the victim needs real tangible help and protection...

not much is done to help them... 

what they thought was a protection, turns out to be paper walls with no protection at all.

I think you have pinpointed the problem. People think that church membership is a protection and a sanctuary. It is more of a hospital than a sanctuary.   The church is not designed to be a protection against criminal acts.  We don't have security personal at our ward buildings, we don't vet people who want to attend and worship and we don't have any investigative force. 

There is nothing at the church that keeps bad people away. If anything, we are commanded in the scriptures to invite bad people to come to church with us. 

Every week in our ward we have someone sitting so they can watch the hall and see who comes in, but we are not trained police officers.  We have a bathroom that is marked for children only, but what if the children are the ones doing the abuse (Quite common statistically).  I am not going into the bathroom with them. 

I try to teach our children to watch out for people (even church members) doing things that are wrong. We try and monitor them, but me and my wife know that there is always a risk. we can work to mitigate it, but we will never eliminate it. (and we have discussed this often as she unfortunately experienced abuse as a child)

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Danzo

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

In a recent child abuse case with a currently serving bishop who denied the allegations, the victims were told they needed two to three witnesses. In Bill Carstensen's case he admitted guilt sporadically, there were also multiple children who accused him despite loving him deeply. Does their witness not count?

Can you really imagine church courts pronouncing people innocent or guilty of criminal abuse without the authorities being involved. Can you imagine them say "you are guilty" when the police and courts pronounce them innocent? Or Say "you are Innocent" when the police or courts pronounce them guilty?  

Have you really thought this out?

Are we as church members better trained at interviewing techniques, evidence analysis, cross examination etc. than the police and government prosecutors?

you say you were involved in a trial for abuse (I have served as a Juror in an abuse case as well).  Do you think the bishop and the ward members would be up to the task of prosecuting such a case?

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Danzo

[Abulafia]

Danzo, they pronounce people guilty of non criminal infractions all the time! If the church were more open with Handbook 1 we might understand more how they operate.

Here's what I can gather from online sources.

"The process of church discipline starts when the presiding officer hears of a transgression (chapter 3) in one of three ways:

(1) The Holy Ghost
(2) Member confesses
(3) Outside source

The bishop interviews any member accused of a serious transgression, and is responsible to gather further evidence to prove or disprove the accusation, if the member denies upon interview.  The bishop can gather the evidence himself, or appoint two "reliable Mechizedek Priesthood holders" to investigate (unless the member is being investigated by law enforcement).  They're supposed to avoid hidden cameras, recording devices, or maintaining a watch on a member's home (chapter 4, Interviews and Investigation).  When members of different wards transgress together, and A tells A's bishop the identity of B, A's bishop consults with B's bishop (chapter 5, Confidentiality).  

Mandatory situations (for disciplinary councils) include murder, incest, child abuse, serious transgression while holding a prominent position, apostasy, and predatory behavior.  Also, "Attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing." 

Hat tip to B Carmack.

 

So, are these just words? 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Abulafia

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Danzo, they pronounce people guilty of non criminal infractions all the time! If the church were more open with Handbook 1 we might understand more how they operate.

 

Yes but how often do they pronounce people guilty of Serious Criminal infractions, when the secular authorities don't?

For practical reasons, they really don't I am certainly not aware of any such case.  For the church to do so they would have to have an investigative ability that they don't have. 

 

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The bishop interviews any member accused of a serious transgression, and is responsible to gather further evidence to prove or disprove the accusation, if the member denies upon interview.  The bishop can gather the evidence himself, or appoint two "reliable Mechizedek Priesthood holders" to investigate (unless the member is being investigated by law enforcement).  They're supposed to avoid hidden cameras, recording devices, or maintaining a watch on a member's home (chapter 4, Interviews and Investigation).  When members of different wards transgress together, and A tells A's bishop the identity of B, A's bishop consults with B's bishop (chapter 5, Confidentiality).  

 

There is a reason for this. No one wants a criminal investigate to be jeopardized by accusations of witness tampering.  

Edited October 5, 2018 by Danzo

[Abulafia]

Danzo. Okay. Now we are having a conversation without insults. Thankyou.

The Bountiful police weren't interested in pursuing the case. So, it was going nowhere with the police.

So, given the kids were being abused and they were accusing the babysitter, their dad, and the Miles, how should the bishop have handled it according to church policy?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Abulafia

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Danzo. Okay. Now we are having a conversation without insults. Thankyou.

The Bountiful police weren't interested in pursuing the case. So, it was going nowhere with the police.

So, given the kids were being abused and they were accusing the babysitter, their dad, and the Miles, how should the bishop have handled it according to church policy?

The only thing the bishop could do would be to talk to the babysitter, the dad, the Miles, etc.  

If the babysitter, the dad, the Miles, didn't confess or want to talk the bishop, there was probably nothing else he could do.

I know you don't seem to have been active in the church for a while but are you aware of any other course of action?

Seriously, you said you participated in a sexual abuse trial, do you think your bishop or branch president would have the resources to have investigated and prosecuted a sexual abuse trial?

Even if they could, Should they?

 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The only thing the bishop could do would be to talk to the babysitter, the dad, the Miles, etc.  

If the babysitter, the dad, the Miles, didn't confess or want to talk the bishop, there was probably nothing else he could do.

I know you don't seem to have been active in the church for a while but are you aware of any other course of action?

Seriously, you said you participated in a sexual abuse trial, do you think your bishop or branch president would have the resources to have investigated and prosecuted a sexual abuse trial?

Even if they could, Should they?

Honestly, I understand how easy it is to judge people on these issues.  If you look at my posts in this thread, I even started out criticizing the Church's actions, but after reading the documents and learning more about the case, I'm not so sure.  It's easy to say what they should have done.  But at the time...?

Heck, part of this whole mess is that Bill Carstensen married another woman who had kids and molested those kids as well.  And before the marriage, the first wife told the new wife that he was a child molester!  So my initial reaction is to accuse the second wife of being stupid and willfully negligent.

But if I put myself in the place of the second wife, where I've met this great guy, who looks like he'll be a great husband and father, with good standing in the Church, and then his ex-wife tells me a story about him being a child molester, what am I going to do?  "Sorry Bill, everything seems great and I was looking forward to our life together, but your ex-wife just accused you of being a child molester so I'm ending this right now."

Sure, that's what she should have done, but is it realistic to expect someone in a relationship to behave that way?  Or is it rational to doubt the ex-wife?  Because I would not be surprised if someone on this forum knows of a situation where a spiteful ex-wife lied about her ex-husband to try and sabotage his happiness.

 

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Danzo. Okay. Now we are having a conversation without insults. Thankyou.

The Bountiful police weren't interested in pursuing the case. So, it was going nowhere with the police.

So, given the kids were being abused and they were accusing the babysitter, their dad, and the Miles, how should the bishop have handled it according to church policy?

Serious question, do you  want the LDS church to have an inquisition?

I think that is what you may be proposing.

We had a conversation about this in our ward counsel and in a fifth Sunday meeting.

The bishop and everyone else agreed that if we know abuse is happening we should report it to the police and then, if the alleged perpetrator was a member, to report it to the bishop so he could take steps to keep the him away from potential victims.

The bishop emphasized that this was the easy case. 

The much more difficult case was what if you only suspect something is happening, but have no evidence? Only Rumor? Only a sense that something was wrong?

How is he supposed to handle that one.  False rumors of being a child abuser can destroy a person.  I hope that you never are in that position but I have been a close witness. It is devastating.  In the case I witness it came really close to people being killed. One of the people who was with the person who was being falsely accused had a firearm and was fortunately smart enough not to use it  even though the police physically assaulted the mother of the child.  It was extremely traumatic, like nothing I had witnessed before or since.   There is very little to compare to the combination of outrage fear and disbelief that comes with it. 

Who do you call when it is the police that are attacking you? When the police are the ones Kidnapping your child? When you actually have to call members of the ward to see if they will hide you children from law enforcement? When the authorities are telling the child that they have to confess to their parent's crime or they will never see their parents again?

I was there, I am not making this up.

Luckily in this case, we were well enough connected and had good enough advice that we were able to resolve the situation, but many re not so fortunate and it could have gone much worse.

 

 

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Yes. I have served as a juror on a similarly horrific child abuse case. It took 3 months,of sifting through police reports, witness testimony, medical reports, family services reports, and so on, along with the judges summing up of the case. We have no statute of limitations on child abuse here in the UK. 12 of us deliberated after hearing 3 months of horrific details, and made our judgment. We did the right thing according to the evidence. 

You was on a jury for three months?! Even murder trials don't take that long here. Longest trial I've been part of was 5 days, it was a child sexuall molestation case. (read it here), although the case went on for three years, due to the defense lawyers were changed and a slew of continuances (asked for by the defence).  The trial lasted a week. 3 months as a juror, wow!

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You was on a jury for three months?! Even murder trials don't take that long here. Longest trial I've been part of was 5 days, it was a child sexuall molestation case. (read it here), although the case went on for three years, due to the defense lawyers were changed and a slew of continuances (asked for by the defence).  The trial lasted a week. 3 months as a juror, wow!

Ugh.  I was curious what the average time in the UK was when I read your post.  The longest one was 20 MONTHS!

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

 I believe the children were severely sexually abused because the medical evidence clearly states they were severely sexually abused.

So, then we have to ask who they were abused by.  Who  do you think abused them? Someone did.

I don't know but every accusation the comes along you believe. Not once have you considered false accusations, you assume guilt until proven innocent. Well I have been told many times on this board you can't prove a negative.

[Calm]

Interestingly, accusations in custody cases seemed to have been transformed overnight back in the late 80s (same time period as this case)...can't post the link as it freaks the censor, so if you want to read the article, select part of the quote and do a search.

Part of the increase is likely simply greater awareness, but that much of a jump in so short a time is probably at least partly due to hearing the success of the accusation in other custody cases in at least causing problems for the other spouse.

From an 1987 New York Times article:

Quote

Dr. Guyer runs a program in the psychiatry department of the University of Michigan that evaluates contested custody cases for the courts. When the program began five years ago, he said, from 5 to 10 percent of the 200 cases studied each year involved allegations of sexual abuse. Today, he said, such allegations are made in 30 percent of the cases.

''Sexual abuse is on everybody's mind and everybody's pointing fingers,'' Dr. Guyer said. ''We never saw this sort of thing two, three years ago. Before it was, he drinks, she runs around - the usual stuff. This is a new song and everybody's singing it.''

By all accounts, most false charges spring from the mother's misinterpretation of the young child's account of an overnight visit with the father. The fact that fathers are bathing, dressing and toilet-training young children makes them vulnerable to such allegations, the authorities say, while the hostility between divorcing parents intensifies the issue.

Citing a typical case, a New York lawyer, Herman L. Tarnow, said: ''The mother says the father touched the 2-year-old's ------ How else is he supposed to clean the child? This is happening over and over.''

Edited to get past autocensor

[Calm]

As an FYI, in my very brief reading on false allegations in custody cases, the research generally favors the conclusion it is usually the noncustodial parent that employs false accusations when they occur.  The spiteful divorcing mother using the child as a weapon appears to be a less common occurrence  in most of the research, less than 2% of allegations according to most I read, but the research is limited and often over 20 years old, so problematic; however even 1 in a 100 yields numerous cases over the years if one counts how many divorces involving children are out there.  Abusive parents may make false allegations of fitness as well as a form of control, so stats appear to be all over for which parent is more likely to do what.  I think Family Law would be my last choice if I was a lawyer.

Mistakes leading to false allegations appear to be much more common than intentional lying according to all the research blips I looked at.

Add-on:  this looks like the most current useful article, I need to read it now to see if it changes my mind about the above...

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/07-08/cover-custody.aspx

add-on and on:  definitely confirms my desire to stay as far away from family court as possible...

Quote

The standard assumption is that it's good for kids to have relationships with both parents, but that's a big problem when one parent is abusive, she said. In Walker's experience, courts also tend to over-rely on what the custody evaluator says to the exclusion of almost all other evidence, including allegations of abuse. Yet custody evaluators don't always know what they're doing, said Meier, explaining that they may use the wrong psychological tests to evaluate parents or misinterpret data. And because judges and lawyers don't always understand what a good evaluation looks like, they can be swayed by the evaluator's personality rather than the facts of the case. Research also shows that many family court judges and attorneys don't know enough about abuse or its psychological impact on children, which can result in inappropriate custody decisions, Walker added.

Judges and lawyers aren't the only ones making mistakes, said psychologist Robert Geffner, PhD, of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma at Alliant International University. He believes some psychologists and other mental health professionals are also committing grave ethical offenses.

He believes some psychologists involved in contested custody cases are practicing outside their areas of expertise. Others violate the APA Ethics Code's ban on dual relationships, taking on roles as expert evaluators, parenting coordinators and therapists with a family, he says. Others don't get informed consent from the family members they are evaluating. Other problems include conflicts of interest, inappropriate release of information and failure to report abuse to child protective services.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Calm

[jerryp48]

Wow what a small world.  My parents moved into  Bill Carstensen's home in 1989 while I was on my mission.  I now own the home across the street from Brenda Miles.  Somehow although my family has lived in the neighborhood for going on 30 years I missed all the drama.

The Mileses are just about the finest people I know.  Not sure how they got caught up in all this nonsense but there is no way any of these allegations against them are true.  These plaintiffs need counseling but for the love Pete don't send them to this Snow character.

 

[Calm]

That is a small world.  It sounds from Smith's description like many of the families who believed their children were victims moved out of the neighbourhood.  I can't imagine too many of those left behind wanted to talk about it, especially as there were a number of other accusations besides the two families.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Calm

[jerryp48]

I really can't believe anyone is taking her serious.  I have a schizophrenic brother and this lady exhibits all the same characteristics.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

I really can't believe anyone is taking her serious.  I have a schizophrenic brother and this lady exhibits all the same characteristics.

Who are you talking about?

[jerryp48]

Marion Smith

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who are you talking about?

Marion Smith