Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Was this before or after Denson's claim

After...see my additions as it may be a fraud.  The name exists, but the woman may be too old (if my calculations are right, she would have been 26 or older at the time of the alleged attack) and someone claims it was a "test".

Mods never received verification she was real.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

After...see my additions as it may be a fraud.

Quite possible. I find the phenomena where another people will make accusations to pile on someone even if it didnt happen to them so strange.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

What coverup? Are you confusing the legal process for a coverup?

Who here is savoring a delicious meal over this? The only people who are surprised by this for some unkown reason are her supporters. It's old news with a few more details thrown in.

I was talking about the coverup of Bishop himself and his many problems brought up before his progression.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I was talking about the coverup of Bishop himself and his many problems brought up before his progression.

Specifics please.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes. You have dodged the question repeatedly. If you are not going to respond, at least stop answering me to pretend I need to be instructed on what Bishop said.

Has anyone seen any substantiation of Denson's claim of being sexually abused as a child?

I think this is a case that someone might need a private detective for, and the only one with a vested interested the most would be the church. Would love to know someone at Kirton McConkie that might know or have the ability to find out this woman's past as far as her upbringing and childhood etc. She seems to be so very unknowable, and all these months it's just now that we're hearing about this other life of crime. We knew some things but not the most damaging parts. I guess I need to give the church kudos for keeping mum on these, if they knew. And with their money, I think it probable that they did know. 

We can't very well ask her friends or former friends, like John Dehlin, Sam Young or last but not least, Mike Norton. Because she isn't trustworthy to believe what she told them even. The only ones left would be her family. 

[Calm]

Bishop's family and others defrauded by her and now know where she is if they see her in the news have a vested interest.  Her husband put a PI on her when they were going through a divorce.  Be interesting to see that file.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

all these months it's just now that we're hearing about this other life of crime. 

Not really, the dossier leaked to the press by Greg Bishop was described with a lot of info about her criminal acts.  The shocking stuff of self harm, her accusations resulting in jail time is new; that she faked being ill with cancer, forged prescriptions, attempted to defrauded two restaurants with a razor blade claim and being attacked in a parking lot after asking about security liability...that was all known from practically the beginning. (April 3 according to Trib article, think their first article was published Mar 21).

Edited May 30, 2019 by Calm

[Amulek]

On 5/28/2019 at 11:51 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Literally my favourite thing from this whole sordid mess so far:

From 'Radio Free Mormon', who has repeatedly attemped to smear the Church for not telling the 'whole story' (i.e. the details he prefers since the actual whole story would need to be infinite in size):

Quote

At this point (still four months ago), she told me she wanted to go public with the story; I advised her in no uncertain terms to not do that; I told her I wasn't the smartest guy in the world, but the first thing I thought of when she said the story about the Drano in the orange juice was the razor blades in the P.F. Chang's cake frosting; that I was sure I wasn't the only person who would make the connection.

There's actually an even more on-point connection - one that has been bothering me for the last several days, though I haven't been able to put a finger on it (until now).

I was looking for something in an old thread and found this post of mine where I had transcribed the following quote from McKenna during of one of her interviews: 

[22:40] I have had…different, um…So I have a neighbor that drugged our orange juice at my house. My girls lost some time. Um, then he raped me and the police came. By the time we did the rape kit there wasn’t enough evidence there. And they couldn’t prove that he put the drugs in the juice.  So…yeah, anyway. So, you know, the church is saying she has a history of this. She has a history.

History indeed...

Of course, maybe she's not making any of it up. Maybe, wherever she goes, people around her just have some sort of uncontrollable urge to sneak into her house and place harmful substances in her orange juice (always in her orange juice). If I were her I would seriously consider making the switch to pomegranate juice. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

... She seems to be so very unknowable ...

On the contrary: She's very knowable.  She reveals herself all too clearly every time she opens her mouth, much to the dismay of her supporters and erstwhile supporters, and even to many sympathetic members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who might, if so many of her claims did not suffer from a serious lack of credibility, be inclined to take her seriously.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On the contrary: She's very knowable.  She reveals herself all too clearly every time she opens her mouth, much to the dismay of her supporters and erstwhile supporters.

 

Why do I brace myself everytime you comment to me, haha!!! 🤣

Edited May 30, 2019 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why do I brace myself everytime you comment to me, haha!!! 🤣

Because I'm mean, heartless, and cruel!!!  

(I certainly hope, notwithstanding occasional, if sometimes pointed, disagreement, that you don't think that!  I'm really not such a bad guy ...)

Seriously, if she had shut up, and had let her attorney do his job, she might have emerged from this process as something of a sympathetic figure.  ("But why do that," she apparently asked herself, "when there's a public platform to be seized and an utterly demonizing [if of questionable reliability and veracity] narrative to be crafted?") As it is, even many of her supporters have been puzzled (at best) by many of her actions.  The more she talks, the more outlandish the tales become, to the point that even many who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints realize that they cannot, in good conscience and good faith, cast their lot with her and maintain even as much as a scintilla of their own credibility while doing so. 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Here is a new podcast I haven't listened to yet, but thought it would go well with all of our questions. 

https://radiofreemormon.org/2019/05/radio-free-mormon-068-will-the-real-mckenna-denson-please-stand-up/?fbclid=IwAR1Zq-Mp3m37Cu3d9CPnJab4aS-HTkV8z-VhROH3a3nxu1Mq2uLppjZxdNI

ETA: Here is what consig aka radiofreemormon posted about the podcast on Mormon Discussions... 

Consig, you’re a nice person, but have you considered maybe stopping with the sensationalism? Why are you guys inserting yourself into this story anymore? Why not let things play out. The more you cover Denson, the more you’re likely ____ up her life, which is already a mess. Your hobby does have consequences.

ConsigIieri: I understand your concern. I want you to know that I called McKenna last night and had a nice long conversation with her. I really wanted to make sure she was doing OK and not about to commit suicide. She told me that she had a couple of plans in place and was glad I called. I also told her we were going to be doing the podcast, what it would be about, and told her that if she didn't want us to do it, I would Cancel it. She encouraged me to go forward. She wants the truth to come out. Even when it doesn't make her look so good.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Specifics please.

Just to my understanding, Bishop had confessed to certain things to  those above him way before he was MTC president.

[Kenngo1969]

If she had drunk Drano once, let alone as many times as she claims to have done so, she wouldn't have an esophagus.  One doesn't do that and then go to the hospital, only to be released a short time later with a clean bill of health.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just to my understanding, Bishop had confessed to certain things to  those above him way before he was MTC president.

And if I said I confessed my sins to my bishop, would you assume that must mean I assaulted someone?

He never gave details of anything close to assault except for the one occurrence of "frisky backrub" that happened when he was MTC president apparently after Denson had left (I can't remember where I read about the timing, I may be wrong...it likely would be not long after she left since Denson believes it was the woman who was in the counseling sessions with her and others).

To keep saying he confessed to things and condemn him on that basis when he did not is unjust.

When he says the below, he still doesn't remember who she is.  There is nothing there to suggest what it was he confessed.

Quote

D-You were never disfellowshipped, had a counsel?

B:  I felt I'd repented. I'd confessed. 

D-Oh. 
B: That time..

D-You confessed about me?
B:  I don't know about I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission. But anyway, let me apologize.

All he says later iirc is he had a sexual addiction.  I don't believe he ever said what it was.  Given that Saints at times define sexual addiction for some pretty minor things, I don't think assumptions that it involved abuse are just.

Rereading the transcript, the hot tub incident...all he contributes is something similar happened to him (Denson's description is he watched with others a woman removing her top).  He doesn't remember telling her that.  I am not sure he really remembers her at that point still.  I don't think there is anything that obviously speaks to him remembering and instead could just be him trying to participate in a conversation he is clueless about.  He obviously is bothered by his bad memory, something he has likely been dealing with a lot given how he apologizes for it quite a bit.  The hot tub incident may never have happened therefore.

His wife exposing herself at the dinner table, that is all Denson.  He just says "yes" and adds no details.  He may be saying "yes" not to agree, but to demonstrate he is following what she is saying (using "yes" instead of "okay").  Or he may be agreeing, but to act like he isn't clueless when he is, or he may fully remember and is agreeing she is accurate.

Any confession dialogue is guided by Denson, all Bishop is supplying is vague "I was addicted, I was a hypocrit" for any confession.  He responds "I remember that" without detail.  This may be actual memory or he may be trying to contribute to the conversation or by her telling it he thinks he is remembering it, I have seen this happen...a possibility explained instantly becomes the reason/memory when it didn't happen that way (Mom is positive she is afraid of elevators because she was trapped in one as a kid simply because I said "maybe something happened when you were younger that makes you scared of elevators" though I knew it wasn't true as I was trying to help her not be so down on herself, she is scared of elevators because she can't move very well and she doesn't understand tech...but now everyone gets the story of how she was trapped in an elevator as a kid...thoughshe then adds "though I can't remember when it happened").  His 'confession' dialogue is parallel to his conversation prior to the reveal where Denson is pretending to be researching a book where he is very self centered, imo, in his descriptions, so he might just be adding the comments of "I was addicted", etc. because he wants to be seen as an active, functional conversationalist.  Or he could really see himself that way or he really was that way.

I am not being dismissive of the idea that Bishop could be a predator.  I think it quite possible and have since I read the transcript the first time.  As I said before I don't like the guy because of how he talks about his wives and blames them for his problems (in an effort to be fair this may not have been how he always was but an affect of age; as I have seen many elderly saying mean things and judging people harshly in ways they never did when younger, makes me sick when my mom does it, she even did it with my dad to the point she almost talked herself out of the marriage when half the stuff she was complaining about wasn't true).  I think it very, very important in public accusations to be accurate and not make assumptions.  We are dealing with people's lives when we attack reputations.

It is why I think it is better to read the police reports rather than rely on Norton's descriptions when he so obviously has a bias.

----

More rereading the transcript being careful about who supplies the details.  At this point Denson doesn't realize that Bishop is talking about a confession/conversation he had with Wells before he met her and she leads him to agree that he confessed about what he did to her...which if he did do anything is impossible for him to confess to since it was in the future.

Quote

D-So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

B-Yes.
D-You talked about what you did with me and other women?

B:  Yes.
D-How many other women are there?

B:  It's not that there's so many other women, it's just the two that were there, I remember one when Iwas in the Bishopric. 

Now the detail of two women appears to be strictly from Bishop...

Denson then brings the conversation back to her time by referring to the 'other girl you were grooming'.  Bishop volunteers part of her name, so original memory (I am assuming there was no improper editing here, but if I was Bishop's lawyer I might go there).  But the full conversation doesn't make sense because apparently he is claiming he molested the other young woman in front of Denson:

Quote

D- Did you molest her?
B: Yes.

D-Did you [inaudible]?

B: Oh yes.
D-To her?
B: Yes.

D-Directly?
B-Yes.
D-Well where the hell were you when ...
B:  With you.

This additional impossibility (if they are talking about him molesting and not just about him talking to her in a counseling session as might be possible due to the inaudible...but that doesn't explain Denson burst of indignation) is never explained.

Next part is Bishop telling of his heroism getting professional counseling for the sisters coming to the MTC with PTSD who are being triggered by something (at least I am assuming that is what he means).

More evidence Bishop's memory was not dependable:

Quote

B:  ----- had been molested, or maybe she hadn't been. I never could quite tell.

D-She was. You and I and she talked about it all together in the same meeting.

B:  Did we?
D-Yes sir. 

If Denson is telling the truth, Bishop's memory has gaps.  If she was lying or had her own false memory, this shows how easily Bishop assumes what Denson is telling is the truth.  Either way, evidence his comments cannot be depended upon.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if I said I confessed my sins to my bishop, would you assume that must mean I assaulted someone?

He never gave details of anything close to assault except for the one occurrence of "frisky backrub" that happened when he was MTC president apparently after Denson had left (I can't remember where I read about the timing, I may be wrong...it likely would be not long after she left since Denson believes it was the woman who was in the counseling sessions with her and others).

To keep saying he confessed to things and condemn him on that basis when he did not is unjust.

When he says the below, he still doesn't remember who she is.  There is nothing there to suggest what it was he confessed.

All he says later iirc is he had a sexual addiction.  I don't believe he ever said what it was.  Given that Saints at times define sexual addiction for some pretty minor things, I don't think assumptions that it involved abuse are just.

Rereading the transcript, the hot tub incident...all he contributes is something similar happened to him (Denson's description is he watched with others a woman removing her top).  He doesn't remember telling her that.  I am not sure he really remembers her at that point still.  I don't think there is anything that obviously speaks to him remembering and instead could just be him trying to participate in a conversation he is clueless about.  He obviously is bothered by his bad memory, something he has likely been dealing with a lot given how he apologizes for it quite a bit.  The hot tub incident may never have happened therefore.

His wife exposing herself at the dinner table, that is all Denson.  He just says "yes" and adds no details.  He may be saying "yes" not to agree, but to demonstrate he is following what she is saying (using "yes" instead of "okay").  Or he may be agreeing, but to act like he isn't clueless when he is, or he may fully remember and is agreeing she is accurate.

Any confession dialogue is guided by Denson, all Bishop is supplying is vague "I was addicted, I was a hypocrit" for any confession.  He responds "I remember that" without detail.  This may be actual memory or he may be trying to contribute to the conversation or by her telling it he thinks he is remembering it, I have seen this happen...a possibility explained instantly becomes the reason/memory when it didn't happen that way (Mom is positive she is afraid of elevators because she was trapped in one as a kid simply because I said "maybe something happened when you were younger that makes you scared of elevators" though I knew it wasn't true, she is scared of elevators because she can't move very well and she doesn't understand tech...but now everyone gets the story of how she was trapped in an elevator as a kid...thoughshe then adds "though I can't remember when it happened").  His 'confession' dialogue is parallel to his conversation prior to the reveal where Denson is pretending to be researching a book where he is very self centered, imo, in his descriptions.

I am not being dismissive of the idea that Bishop could be a predator.  I think it quite possible and have since I read the transcript the first time.  As I said before I don't like the guy because of how he talks about his wives and blames them for his problems (in an effort to be fair this may not have been how he always was but an affect of age; as I have seen many elderly saying mean things and judging people harshly in ways they never did when younger, makes me sick when my mom does it, she even did it with my dad to the point she almost talked herself out of the marriage when half the stuff she was complaining about wasn't true).  I think it very, very important in public accusations to be accurate and not make assumptions.  We are dealing with people's lives when we attack reputations.

It is why I think it is better to read the police reports rather than rely on Norton's descriptions when he so obviously has a bias.

----

More rereading the transcript being careful about who supplies the details.  At this point Denson doesn't realize that Bishop is talking about a confession/conversation he had with Wells before he met her and she leads him to agree that he confessed about what he did to her...which if he did do anything is impossible for him to confess to since it was in the future.

Now the detail of two women appears to be strictly from Bishop...

Denson then brings the conversation back to her time by referring to the 'other girl you were grooming'.  Bishop volunteers part of her name, so original memory (I am assuming there was no improper editing here, but if I was Bishop's lawyer I might go there).  But the full conversation doesn't make sense because apparently he is claiming he molested the other young woman in front of Denson:

 

It is also important to note that he could not have confessed about Denson in 1978 - when he states he confessed to Elder Wells - because anything concerning Mckenna is said to have happened in 1984..

Edited May 31, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is also important to note that he could not have confessed about Denson in 1978 - when he states he confessed to Elder Wells - because anything concerning Mckenna is said to have happened in 1984..

Yep, that is the first bolded part I point to as impossible where she actually lead him to stating that (she says it, he says "yes").

My iPad is freezing, so that is as far as I am going to take it...at least for now.

I am going to start demanding CFRs (meaning I want specifics so I know exactly what is meant or even better quotes so I don't have to doublecheck the paraphrase is accurate) for any vague claims.  And honestly since I feel like I have invested a lot of time and effort being precise and providing references that is being ignored because vague claims continue to be made without reference to  specifics, I will start reporting if the CFRs are not met...not because I want to punish anyone, but because I think the conversation will be more useful to all if people doublecheck their memories and understanding.

There are a number of peoples' reputations involved and being tarred as a liar and conman or sexual predator or protector of a sexual predator is life shattering, not only for the person, but for their loved ones.  If such attacks are made, best evidence needs to be provided, not assumed.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep, that is the first bolded part I point to as impossible where she actually lead him to stating that (she says it, he says "yes").

My iPad is freezing, so that is as far as I am going to take it...at least for now.

I am going to start demanding CFRs (meaning I want specifics so I know exactly what is meant or even better quotes so I don't have to doublecheck the paraphrase is accurate) for any vague claims.  And honestly since I feel like I have invested a lot of time and effort being precise and providing references that is being ignored because vague claims continue to be made without reference to  specifics, I will start reporting if the CFRs are not met...not because I want to punish anyone, but because I think the conversation will be more useful to all if people doublecheck their memories and understanding.

There are a number of peoples' reputations involved and being tarred as a liar and conman or sexual predator or protector of a sexual predator is life shattering, not only for the person, but for their loved ones.  If such attacks are made, best evidence needs to be provided, not assumed.

Strangely on a particular forum, since MN videos, people are now doing as you are - either correcting someone who post "well he confessed to *x*" or they are clarifying the he did not confess to specific and that his statements were vague.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He never gave details of anything close to assault except for the one occurrence of "frisky backrub" that happened when he was MTC president apparently after Denson had left (I can't remember where I read about the timing, I may be wrong...it likely would be not long after she left since Denson believes it was the woman who was in the counseling sessions with her and others).

Calm, have you listened to the recent Radio Free Mormon podcast I posted a short while ago today? If you haven't, RFM mentions that in the BYU police report they redacted something pretty vital about the incident with the frisky backrub. They redacted that he massaged the sister missionary's butt as well. I had no idea about this part, pretty much tells me that he committed sexual assault. 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Calm, have you listened to the recent Radio Free Mormon podcast I posted a short while ago today? If you haven't, RFM mentions that in the BYU police report they redacted something pretty vital about the incident with the frisky backrub. They redacted that he massaged the sister missionaries butt as well. I had no idea about this part, pretty much tells me that he committed sexual assault. 

 

Time stamp please.

How does he know?  Does he have the unredacted version and if he does has he posted it and if not, why not?

Did he quote it or paraphrase?

Given RFM told Denson to keep quiet about the most recent alleged attacks, I don't see him as the bastion of truth and transparency enough to take his word alone.  Documentation please.

Bishop likely not being on drugs and apparently more mobile, less dependent makes the police interview much more reliable in my view.  (I go off the Arizona central? News article where the reporter describes him as coming to the door and he sounds rather vigorous, will find the link). 

However, I wish we had some official info on his memory (his multiple references to his "bad memory" in the transcript makes it sound more than the usual old age stuff, though it might have been that plus the probable drugs post surgery).  If he does have dementia, his police interview is possibly tainted by his conversation with Denson as he might create memories to try and explain what she accused him of.  So it is important to know what he said, whether there was any leading by the BYU detectives (I wouldn't think so as they wouldn't be invested in getting him to confess as far as I can think, but they might have fallen into the trap,of trying to be helpful to an old guy who rambles and can't stay on point).  

Edited May 31, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

Time stamp please.

Did he quote it or paraphrase?

How did I know you were going to ask me this!?!

I went on a walk and listened on my phone, so now I'll need to go back and re-listen to get it. It might take me some time, hopefully I'll be able to edit this.  I do know that it was past the middle portion. I don't blame you for not wanting to listen, it was long!

[Calm]

On 5/30/2019 at 9:55 PM, Tacenda said:

How did I know you were going to ask me this!?!

I went on a walk and listened on my phone, so now I'll need to go back and re-listen to get it. It might take me some time, hopefully I'll be able to edit this.  I do know that it was past the middle portion. I don't blame you for not wanting to listen, it was long!

I appreciate it.  I hate podcasts and have to force myself to listen to the rest of Norton's when I can focus enough (I can focus on text so much easier), to face listening to another one not knowing if there is actual substance...yeah, not going to do that, not that obsessed.  

Eagerly awaiting the text of the unredacted btw.  If I understand the issue, it is not just personal names and contact info that is redacted but more and that such is required from police in general, so BYU should follow that standard.  I actually felt bad for the people in the Denson police reports that had all their info but SSN given and think that should be redacted, perhaps illegal (one report started to, but then stopped after half a page) but the other details are useful and often necessary in understanding what happened and what didn't.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Time stamp please.

Did he quote it or paraphrase?

Given RFM told Denson to keep quiet about the most recent alleged attacks, I don't see him as the bastion of truth and transparency enough to take his word alone.  Documentation please.

If it helps, my memory is, at one point many months ago RFM mentioned - I believe - 4 versions of the BYU report being released or that somehow he received a less redacted copy - IIRC RFM indicates that one of the redaction is about the frisky back rub - RFM podcast Radio Free Mormon: 031: BYU Police Report Bombshells: MTC Sex Scandal Update

time stamp 4:00minutes - 5:00minutes

Edited May 31, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:12 PM, provoman said:

If it helps, my memory is, at one point many months ago RFM mentioned - I believe - 4 versions of the BYU report being released or that somehow he received a less redacted copy - IIRC RFM indicates that one of the redaction is about the frisky back rub - RFM podcast Radio Free Mormon: 031: BYU Police Report Bombshells:

So did he publish them?

Looks like he did.  I don't know if these are what I read before or less redacted.  Will have to read and see.

Added  those are the redacted versions, not the ones he says he has unredacted.  So why hasn't he posted those?

He does not say how he got the less redacted version.  How do we know it is not a fake?  (Not claiming it is, but if someone wanted to discredit those criticizing Bishop, putting a false 'less redacted' version out there would be one thing they could do)

That was very helpful, thank you.  You too, Tacenda for bringing it up.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Calm, have you listened to the recent Radio Free Mormon podcast I posted a short while ago today? If you haven't, RFM mentions that in the BYU police report they redacted something pretty vital about the incident with the frisky backrub. They redacted that he massaged the sister missionary's butt as well. I had no idea about this part, pretty much tells me that he committed sexual assault. 

 

Assuming the rubbing the buttock is an accurate reading of the redacted portion, this means that is it possible that this sister reported to church leadership in 2010 that she was sexually assaulted by Bishop when he gave her a backrub and rubbed her butt.  At which point Bishop denied it happened, the woman was provided with professional and pastoral counseling and the matter otherwise dropped apparently.

He states he never spoke to SL leadership about a possible sexual assault.  This would be true if only local leaders talked to him in 2010 as reported by the Newsroom.  However if he had dementia, I don't see him as likely being sly enough to make that distinction so I am guessing he either lied (which means he was likely lying at other times) or had forgotten or perhaps because he had convinced himself that is was consensual and therefore not an assault so no one talked with him about an assault.

Otoh, the sister may have not described their interaction that way because of embarrassment.

It is unfortunate that Bishop will not go to trial because what happened after Denson being at the MTC is irrelevant to the current limited lawsuit about prior knowledge,so likely this incident will not be examined in court...unless the woman decides to sue herself and somehow gets past the statue of limitations.  We might end up hearing the tape of Bishop's police interview, which I think is going to be the only useful info we can get now from Bishop, unless his dementia has been way overblown (that level of stress over that time period and him possibly obsessing about it, rewriting it in his mind each time he remembers...not seeing how he could be trusted at this point.

I would not be the least surprised if this had happened in 1984.