Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, esodije said:

I have to wonder what Denson could possibly have on Leavitt. 

Perhaps inconsistent statements.  He gave an interview to KUTV, and then perhaps said something different during his deposition.

His mental faculties are in question, though, so I'm not sure how much weight we should lend to him providing inconsistent statements.

6 minutes ago, esodije said:

As I understand it, Leavitt originally said he didn't report Denson's accusations up the chain in 1987 because he didn't believe them.  But then he supposedly arranged the interview Denson said she had with Carlos Asay, to which her future ex-husband took her.  What could he have told her last year that would be a bombshell for the church?

That he did, in fact, set up the interview with Elder Asay.  I'm not sure how much of a "bombshell" this would be.  She already made the allegation when she filed the lawsuit.

It would be interesting to determine if Ms. Denson's ex-husband would be deposed.  Her narrative is that he accompanied her when she met with Elder Asay (though she says he was not in the room).  Moreover, her narrative is that she did not tell Elder Asay about the rape.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, esodije said:

I have to wonder what Denson could possibly have on Leavitt.  As I understand it, Leavitt originally said he didn't report Denson's accusations up the chain in 1987 because he didn't believe them.  But then he supposedly arranged the interview Denson said she had with Carlos Asay, to which her future ex-husband took her.  What could he have told her last year that would be a bombshell for the church?

Ruin careers would likely refer to currently employed persons, so I am guessing she is claiming church lawyers talked Leavitt into lying or she is making no claims and just hoping people like me have enough imagination to come up with stuff on our own. 
 

Given her original accusations of coverup, etc, I would think my idea would hardly be disturbing to her and instead expected if her stories were true.  The whole letter seems an exercise in drama to me. 

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps inconsistent statements.  He gave an interview to KUTV, and then perhaps said something different during his deposition.

His mental faculties are in question, though, so I'm not sure how much weight we should lend to him providing inconsistent statements.

That he did, in fact, set up the interview with Elder Asay.  I'm not sure how much of a "bombshell" this would be.  She already made the allegation when she filed the lawsuit.

It would be interesting to determine if Ms. Denson's ex-husband would be deposed.  Her narrative is that he accompanied her when she met with Elder Asay (though she says he was not in the room).  Moreover, her narrative is that she did not tell Elder Asay about the rape.

Thanks,

-Smac

If she didn’t tell Elder Asay about the rape, why does it matter if she talked with him or not?

[smac97]

On 1/31/2020 at 12:03 AM, Avatar4321 said:

If she didn’t tell Elder Asay about the rape, why does it matter if she talked with him or not?

I'm not sure.  Bad optics, I guess.  

Her legal theory probably isn't advanced by her proving that she met with Elder Asay.  Her only remaining claim is that the Church knew that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator" before appointing him president of the MTC, that the Church nevertheless put him in that position, and that the Church did not notify incoming missionaries about his sexual predation.  This amounts to a type of fraud (fraudulent concealment and/or fraudulent nondisclosure).  Whatever happened with Elder Asay was a years-after-the-fact development (1987, IIRC), and not likely to be relevant to the legal issue of what the Church knew about Joseph Bishop in 1983/1984 (when he became president of the MTC).

Perhaps more salient is what was learned during the deposition of Elder Wells.

I'm not really inclined to trust Ms. Denson as a narrator or guide to what is happening in the litigation.  Not ony because of her inveterate and wide-ranging dishonesty, but also because she has no training in the law.  She doesn't know what developments are significant.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2020 by smac97

[provoman]

@smac97 ... as a status has not been filed with the court, would the Court assume she wants to proceed pro se? 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

@smac97 ... as a status has not been filed with the court, would the Court assume she wants to proceed pro se? 

Or simply, perhaps, dismiss the case for want of prosecution?

[provoman]

On 2/3/2020 at 4:43 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Or simply, perhaps, dismiss the case for want of prosecution?

Full docket text for document 97:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead: Status Conference and Motion Hearing held on 2/20/2020 re [91] MOTION to Compel Production and Memorandum in Support filed by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The, [94] *SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION*SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION filed by McKenna Denson. After hearing from the parties, Plaintiffs Motion for Mediation is GRANTED. The court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Romero to conduct a settlement conference within the next 60-90 days. The parties are to contact Judge Romeros chambers to schedule the mediation within fourteen days. The case is stayed for 90 days to allow the parties to focus on the mediation. Ms. Denson represented to the court that certain items have gone missing, including the recording sought by Defendant in [91] Motion to Compel. The court orders Ms. Denson to file a sworn affidavit regarding the missing items within 30 days. The court will issue a written order.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Pro Se, Attorney for Defendant: David J. Jordan. Court Reporter: Electronic. (Time Start: 1:33:26, Time End: 1:56:28, Room 7.100). (tls)

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by provoman

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

Full docket text for document 97:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead: Status Conference and Motion Hearing held on 2/20/2020 re [91] MOTION to Compel Production and Memorandum in Support filed by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The, [94] *SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION*SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION filed by McKenna Denson. After hearing from the parties, Plaintiffs Motion for Mediation is GRANTED. The court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Romero to conduct a settlement conference within the next 60-90 days. The parties are to contact Judge Romeros chambers to schedule the mediation within fourteen days. The case is stayed for 90 days to allow the parties to focus on the mediation. Ms. Denson represented to the court that certain items have gone missing, including the recording sought by Defendant in [91] Motion to Compel. The court orders Ms. Denson to file a sworn affidavit regarding the missing items within 30 days. The court will issue a written order.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Pro Se, Attorney for Defendant: David J. Jordan. Court Reporter: Electronic. (Time Start: 1:33:26, Time End: 1:56:28, Room 7.100). (tls)

Hmm.  A few thoughts:

1. The Motion to Compel was granted.  Ms. Denson has 30 days to provide a sworn affidavit as to items that she has referenced, but which are "missing."  I wonder if she will actually provide this affidavit.  I won't exactly hold my breath.  And if she doesn't, then she may face some sanction/punishment from the court for not only "losing" evidence she is obligated to provide to the Church's attorneys, but also for not submitting an affidavit explaining how such pieces of evidence went "missing."

2. The Church's attorneys filed a "Motion for Mediation."  I did not know that.  That's an interesting development, particularly given that the mediator is a federal magistrate judge.  I have no experience with a magistrate judge as a mediator, but I have been in quite a few mediations where the mediator is a retired state court judge.  In such an environment, the mediator is ostensibly neutral, but still tries to find "common ground" between the parties.  In this process, the mediator splits the parties into separate rooms, then shuttles back and forth between them to sort out what their respective positions are.  During these private consultations with the mediator, the mediator may be asked (or may simply offer) to provide an assessment of the legal and evidentiary condition of the party's case.  Since the other party is not present, the mediator can be candid, even blunt, about the strengths and weaknesses of the party's case.  Such a frank assessment from an impartial, but still very informed and experienced, former judge can often be the sort of "reality check" that the party needs.  I'm not sure McKenna Denson will be susceptible to listenign to such a reality check, but hope springs eternal.

3. The mediation may provide a useful opportunity for both sides.  Perhaps the Church could pay for counseling for Ms. Denson.  It's possible that there may be a money payment to her, but I am presently skeptical about that.  Ms. Denson is so profoundly untrustworthy, and such a massive publicity hound, and super-duper eager to publicly trash the Church, I would have a hard time conceptualizing a settlement payment.  Such a payment would involve nondisclosure and nondisparagment requirements, and I have about 0% confidence in Ms. Denson's ability to abide by such conditions.  

4. Ms. Denson is specifically listed as "pro se," meaning the Court is having the litigation proceed with her representing herself.  That the Court granted both of the above motions is further evidence of this (rather than postponing a decision while she spends more time looking for an attorney).

Thanks,

-Smac

[topcougar]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  A few thoughts:

1. The Motion to Compel was granted.  Ms. Denson has 30 days to provide a sworn affidavit as to items that she has referenced, but which are "missing."  I wonder if she will actually provide this affidavit.  I won't exactly hold my breath.  And if she doesn't, then she may face some sanction/punishment from the court for not only "losing" evidence she is obligated to provide to the Church's attorneys, but also for not submitting an affidavit explaining how such pieces of evidence went "missing."

2. The Church's attorneys filed a "Motion for Mediation."  I did not know that.  That's an interesting development, particularly given that the mediator is a federal magistrate judge.  I have no experience with a magistrate judge as a mediator, but I have been in quite a few mediations where the mediator is a retired state court judge.  In such an environment, the mediator is ostensibly neutral, but still tries to find "common ground" between the parties.  In this process, the mediator splits the parties into separate rooms, then shuttles back and forth between them to sort out what their respective positions are.  During these private consultations with the mediator, the mediator may be asked (or may simply offer) to provide an assessment of the legal and evidentiary condition of the party's case.  Since the other party is not present, the mediator can be candid, even blunt, about the strengths and weaknesses of the party's case.  Such a frank assessment from an impartial, but still very informed and experienced, former judge can often be the sort of "reality check" that the party needs.  I'm not sure McKenna Denson will be susceptible to listenign to such a reality check, but hope springs eternal.

3. The mediation may provide a useful opportunity for both sides.  Perhaps the Church could pay for counseling for Ms. Denson.  It's possible that there may be a money payment to her, but I am presently skeptical about that.  Ms. Denson is so profoundly untrustworthy, and such a massive publicity hound, and super-duper eager to publicly trash the Church, I would have a hard time conceptualizing a settlement payment.  Such a payment would involve nondisclosure and nondisparagment requirements, and I have about 0% confidence in Ms. Denson's ability to abide by such conditions.  

4. Ms. Denson is specifically listed as "pro se," meaning the Court is having the litigation proceed with her representing herself.  That the Court granted both of the above motions is further evidence of this (rather than postponing a decision while she spends more time looking for an attorney).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  A few thoughts:

1. The Motion to Compel was granted.  Ms. Denson has 30 days to provide a sworn affidavit as to items that she has referenced, but which are "missing."  I wonder if she will actually provide this affidavit.  I won't exactly hold my breath.  And if she doesn't, then she may face some sanction/punishment from the court for not only "losing" evidence she is obligated to provide to the Church's attorneys, but also for not submitting an affidavit explaining how such pieces of evidence went "missing."

2. The Church's attorneys filed a "Motion for Mediation."  I did not know that.  That's an interesting development, particularly given that the mediator is a federal magistrate judge.  I have no experience with a magistrate judge as a mediator, but I have been in quite a few mediations where the mediator is a retired state court judge.  In such an environment, the mediator is ostensibly neutral, but still tries to find "common ground" between the parties.  In this process, the mediator splits the parties into separate rooms, then shuttles back and forth between them to sort out what their respective positions are.  During these private consultations with the mediator, the mediator may be asked (or may simply offer) to provide an assessment of the legal and evidentiary condition of the party's case.  Since the other party is not present, the mediator can be candid, even blunt, about the strengths and weaknesses of the party's case.  Such a frank assessment from an impartial, but still very informed and experienced, former judge can often be the sort of "reality check" that the party needs.  I'm not sure McKenna Denson will be susceptible to listenign to such a reality check, but hope springs eternal.

3. The mediation may provide a useful opportunity for both sides.  Perhaps the Church could pay for counseling for Ms. Denson.  It's possible that there may be a money payment to her, but I am presently skeptical about that.  Ms. Denson is so profoundly untrustworthy, and such a massive publicity hound, and super-duper eager to publicly trash the Church, I would have a hard time conceptualizing a settlement payment.  Such a payment would involve nondisclosure and nondisparagment requirements, and I have about 0% confidence in Ms. Denson's ability to abide by such conditions.  

4. Ms. Denson is specifically listed as "pro se," meaning the Court is having the litigation proceed with her representing herself.  That the Court granted both of the above motions is further evidence of this (rather than postponing a decision while she spends more time looking for an attorney).

Thanks,

-Smac

Mediation allows the parties to settle the matter without the Court ruling. Judges favor allowing the parties to resolve issues. Judge Romero is likely a good choice to act as a neutral in the matter to give Denson a final lifeline.  However, all settlements in a mediation like this are voluntary.  Neither side is required to agree to unreasonable terms. I do not expect the Church to write any  check without some strings attached to prevent further false claims.  To the extent some of her allegations  may be  true, I expect the Church would like to provide some kind of help and compensation. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, topcougar said:

Mediation allows the parties to settle the matter without the Court ruling. Judges favor allowing the parties to resolve issues. Judge Romero is likely a good choice to act as a neutral in the matter to give Denson a final lifeline.  However, all settlements in a mediation like this are voluntary.  Neither side is required to agree to unreasonable terms.

Yes, I should have explained that.

1 minute ago, topcougar said:

I do not expect the Church to write any  check without some strings attached to prevent further false claims.  To the extent some of her allegations  may be  true, I expect the Church would like to provide some kind of help and compensation. 

I agree.  But my concern is whether Ms. Denson could be trusted to comply with the conditions that are attached to a settlement.

Frankly, I don't think she can be trusted.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

https://kutv.com/news/local/womans-fraud-case-against-lds-church-for-alleged-cover-up-sent-to-settlement

[smac97]

On 2/21/2020 at 10:38 AM, smac97 said:

Hmm.  A few thoughts:

1. The Motion to Compel was granted.  Ms. Denson has 30 days to provide a sworn affidavit as to items that she has referenced, but which are "missing."  I wonder if she will actually provide this affidavit.  I won't exactly hold my breath.  And if she doesn't, then she may face some sanction/punishment from the court for not only "losing" evidence she is obligated to provide to the Church's attorneys, but also for not submitting an affidavit explaining how such pieces of evidence went "missing."

On March 20, 2020, Ms. Denson filed a set of sealed documents with the Court:

Quote

Full docket text for document 100:
**SEALED DOCUMENT** filed by Plaintiff McKenna Denson. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit, # (2) Exhibit A, # (3) Exhibit B, # (4) Exhibit C, # (5) Envelope) (eat)

These documents are not available to the general public, but since she had 30 days from February 21 to file a sworn affidavit as to items she has not given to the Church, and since she filed the above documents, which include an affidavit, on March 20, I think we can assume these documents relate to the Motion to Compel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

On 3/24/2020 at 11:18 AM, smac97 said:

On March 20, 2020, Ms. Denson filed a set of sealed documents with the Court:

These documents are not available to the general public, but since she had 30 days from February 21 to file a sworn affidavit as to items she has not given to the Church, and since she filed the above documents, which include an affidavit, on March 20, I think we can assume these documents relate to the Motion to Compel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you mind opining as to why the Court might seal documents/affidavits related to the current whereabout of the tape? I looked up information  related to sealing documents and didn't see something that might apply - unless discovery materials are not subject to public disclosure.

[smac97]

Yesterday the Church's attorneys filed a sealed motion:

Full docket text for document 101:
*SEALED DOCUMENT* SEALED MOTION filed by Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Jordan, David)

I suspect this motion is responsive to the document Ms. Denson filed on 3/20.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Would you mind opining as to why the Court might seal documents/affidavits related to the current whereabout of the tape?

I think Ms. Denson filed it.  You have the option of filing documents "under seal" in certain circumstances.

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I looked up information  related to sealing documents and didn't see something that might apply - unless discovery materials are not subject to public disclosure.

I dunno.  I have never needed to worry about sealed documents.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I haven't listened yet, but apparently the BYU tapes have finally been released to RFM. I wonder if this will affect Denson's case. Smac?

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2020/04/radio-free-mormon-141-mtc-sex-scandal-the-recordings-part-1/

This is RFM's intro:

After a two-year legal battle with the BYU Police Department, Radio Free Mormon has finally succeeded in obtaining copies of audio recordings related to their investigation of former MTC President Joseph Bishop for allegedly raping a sister missionary in 1984.  These recordings will be released in three parts.  In Part 1, we release the recording of the criminal complaint made to the BYUPD by Mckenna Denson in early December of 2017.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

apparently the BYU tapes have finally been released to RFM. I wonder if this will affect Denson's case. Smac?

 

Released to a member of the public. I would think the Church and then through discovery Denson would already have them. 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Released to a member of the public. I would think the Church and then through discovery Denson would already have them. 

True, I listened to all three parts. The biggest lesson for the church is to help a victim more. The church didn't reach out to her. And the church shouldn't have allowed Bishop to serve as a Mission President after having found out. He mentions that he received a call from someone from the higher ups and throughout the recording they delete all names except for the detectives. So maybe she has a case, albeit a small one. Hope Smac listens when he has time and gives his opinion. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And the church shouldn't have allowed Bishop to serve as a Mission President after having found out. He mentions that he received a call from someone from the higher ups and throughout the recording they delete all names except for the detectives.

That is if one accepts Bishop isn't lying to shift responsibility.  That is a big "if" imo.  He had time to think about his story due to her "interview" of him previously.  His lawyer son could have counseled him on the best way to avoid problems since again, he would have known why the police wanted to talk to Bishop because of Denson's actions.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[esodije]

I listened to the two recorded conversations the BYUPD had with Joseph L Bishop in December 2017 (posted by RFM yesterday). This is what I came away with:

1. There is still a huge disconnect between what Denson said happened in the MTC storage room and what Bishop confessed to. Bishop still thought Denson had had breast-augmentation surgery, and that that is why he requested her to show her breasts to him. When he brought the subject up in with Denson in the nearly three-hour “interview,” however, she laughed it off and even asked Bishop (paraphrasing), “Why would we have been talking about my boobs if I didn’t have any at age 21?” (See page 37 of the transcript.)

2. Bishop, in describing the second conversation he had (by phone) with Denson, said that she told him she would ask the judge (conflating a criminal trial and a civil action?) to go easy on him, as there was a “higher cause” to be served. It’s thus hard not to conclude (a) that the church was her real target all along, and (b) she’d already formulated a plan of action with her attorneys that was calculated both to embarrass the church and to extract money from it.

3. I was intrigued by the fact that the BYUPD officers described in detail to Bishop what might happen to him in a criminal proceeding, but they didn’t once mention the possibility/probability that charges against him would be time-barred. I don’t know if they’ve been trained never to bring up the statute of limitations with an alleged perp, or if it really didn’t occur to them to mention it, but that stood out to me.

4. If Bishop really did confess the “show me your boobs” and “butt massage” incidents to his bishop shortly after they happened, I can’t fathom that bishop not discussing with him whether or not he really should continue as MTC president if he couldn’t resist the urge to diddle (and betray the trust of) young sister missionaries. If I were in that bishop’s shoes, I’d have suggested strongly that Bishop also confess to his superiors in the church Missionary Department and thus put the ball in their court. (And, if he refused to do that, I’d have called church HQ myself.)

5. Lots of male church members end up in frustrating, sexless marriages. However, acting out with young sister missionaries, just for the “titillation” (Bishop’s word choice), betokens a pretty deep character flaw. I still wonder how reliable Bishop’s memory is, just as I wonder if Denson’s recollections haven’t been augmented (my word choice) due to mental issues. But it’s mind-bending to contemplate.the black-hearted man who would manipulate and abuse a young woman in his charge.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

That is if one accepts Bishop isn't lying to shift responsibility.  That is a big "if" imo.  He had time to think about his story due to her "interview" of him previously.  His lawyer son could have counseled him on the best way to avoid problems since again, he would have known why the police wanted to talk to Bishop because of Denson's actions.

But remember that Denson went to the one bishop that was interviewed by the news, the guy who let his daughter live with McKenna and her husband? Wouldn't he have been someone who should have spoke with the superiors? He dropped the ball if he didn't. BTW, I think these recordings may help her current case. If the superiors knew about this and let Bishop go onto being around many more women, not good. I don't care if he repented..hopefully the church won't allow certain callings to be held even if someone confesses in the future.

59 minutes ago, esodije said:

I listened to the two recorded conversations the BYUPD had with Joseph L Bishop in December 2017 (posted by RFM yesterday). This is what I came away with:

1. There is still a huge disconnect between what Denson said happened in the MTC storage room and what Bishop confessed to. Bishop still thought Denson had had breast-augmentation surgery, and that that is why he requested her to show her breasts to him. When he brought the subject up in with Denson in the nearly three-hour “interview,” however, she laughed it off and even asked Bishop (paraphrasing), “Why would we have been talking about my boobs if I didn’t have any at age 21?” (See page 37 of the transcript.)

2. Bishop, in describing the second conversation he had (by phone) with Denson, said that she told him she would ask the judge (conflating a criminal trial and a civil action?) to go easy on him, as there was a “higher cause” to be served. It’s thus hard not to conclude (a) that the church was her real target all along, and (b) she’d already formulated a plan of action with her attorneys that was calculated both to embarrass the church and to extract money from it.

3. I was intrigued by the fact that the BYUPD officers described in detail to Bishop what might happen to him in a criminal proceeding, but they didn’t once mention the possibility/probability that charges against him would be time-barred. I don’t know if they’ve been trained never to bring up the statute of limitations with an alleged perp, or if it really didn’t occur to them to mention it, but that stood out to me.

4. If Bishop really did confess the “show me your boobs” and “butt massage” incidents to his bishop shortly after they happened, I can’t fathom that bishop not discussing with him whether or not he really should continue as MTC president if he couldn’t resist the urge to diddle (and betray the trust of) young sister missionaries. If I were in that bishop’s shoes, I’d have suggested strongly that Bishop also confess to his superiors in the church Missionary Department and thus put the ball in their court. (And, if he refused to do that, I’d have called church HQ myself.)

5. Lots of male church members end up in frustrating, sexless marriages. However, acting out with young sister missionaries, just for the “titillation” (Bishop’s word choice), betokens a pretty deep character flaw. I still wonder how reliable Bishop’s memory is, just as I wonder if Denson’s recollections haven’t been augmented (my word choice) due to mental issues. But it’s mind-bending to contemplate.the black-hearted man who would manipulate and abuse a young woman in his charge.

Agree with all you say here. Also, are you curious to know if McKenna found the medical records for the breast augmentation to prove Bishop's statement was false. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He dropped the ball if he didn't.

I agree.  OTOH, looking back it is understandable why he made the wrong choice not to report (assuming he is not lying).

He said that the report was of being shown porn, that he didn’t believe her, iirc, and most important, that she was known to exaggerate things.  That is consistent with her known current behaviour.

It was the early 80s and the much of greater society was dropping the ball in reference to abuse by family or acquaintances (example:  date rape was in early stages of study while stranger danger programs had been going strong since the 60s); still has been since then at times and in certain areas (examples:  Weinstein, recognition of women as violent offenders of domestic abuse).  Such choices to ignore accusations rather than investigate are very unfortunate and disturbing and has been corrected for the Church in policy and hopefully in practice as well. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, are you curious to know if McKenna found the medical records for the breast augmentation to prove Bishop's statement was false. 

I am not particularly interested as he seems in her surprise interrogation confused about it and I see it as very possible he is confusing her with another sister or that he fixated on her breast augmentation (did she actually have one later on? I can't remember if she did or just got larger as she got older as many women do) as a 'safe' explanation for why he might have requested to see her breast (curiosity, not lust; therefore his story is he is not a bad man, just a foolish one).

About the only thing I am interested in at this point is what her exhusband has to say about allegedly driving her to an appt with Elder Acey.  

Her ex husband made a very strong accusation of her making false accusations of rape iirc (and we later found out with the release of the dossier and confirmation of police reports his accusations were quite accurate), but did not specify publicly she lied about him driving.  I had thought that would be a stupid lie to make because so easily denied by her ex-husband, so at first I judged it as more likely to be true...except for her odd diatribe against him as cheating with 16 iirc women he had baptized (especially considering rates of baptism weren't that high in Japan from what I heard, couple that with all promptly committed adultery with him after baptism is a bizarre claim).  The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me to be her positioning to call him a liar who hated her, thus discrediting him as a witness against her while still having the 'visual' benefit of claiming him as adding a sense of credibility to her story.  Having another person involved would take it in many people's minds beyond a simple he said, she said (which type of situation had gotten her concerns addressed by local church authorities, but nothing done in 2010 iirc), especially if they didn't hear of the exhusband's accusations, not something widely reported iirc.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

On 4/7/2020 at 6:42 PM, Tacenda said:

I haven't listened yet, but apparently the BYU tapes have finally been released to RFM. I wonder if this will affect Denson's case. Smac?

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2020/04/radio-free-mormon-141-mtc-sex-scandal-the-recordings-part-1/

This is RFM's intro:

After a two-year legal battle with the BYU Police Department, Radio Free Mormon has finally succeeded in obtaining copies of audio recordings related to their investigation of former MTC President Joseph Bishop for allegedly raping a sister missionary in 1984.  These recordings will be released in three parts.  In Part 1, we release the recording of the criminal complaint made to the BYUPD by Mckenna Denson in early December of 2017.

I think the Church already has these recordings.

I also think these recordings don't provide much new information.

I also think that BYUPD appears to have done its job in investigating this matter, even going so far as to travel to Arizona to interview Bishop (IIRC, they also traveled to Colorado to interview Denson).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/8/2020 at 1:47 AM, Tacenda said:

True, I listened to all three parts. The biggest lesson for the church is to help a victim more. The church didn't reach out to her.

I think the Church learned this lesson quite a while ago.  Denson's story happened in 1984, after all.

Further, Denson did not disclose anything to the Church until, at the earliest, 1987.  And even then, what she disclosed to her student ward bishop remains in dispute.  Whether she ever actually met with a general authority (Elder Asay) also remains in dispute.  And even if she did meet with Elder Asay, her narrative is that she did not tell him about the purported rape (though she does claim that she told him about Bishop's purported other inappropriate behavior).

On 4/8/2020 at 1:47 AM, Tacenda said:

And the church shouldn't have allowed Bishop to serve as a Mission President after having found out.

"After having found out" what?

Thanks,

-Smac