BYU police of Joseph Bishop interview tape released

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps, if Denson can withstand a motion for summary judgment that will surely come after the close of discovery.  Currently, Denson is requesting extra time to find an attorney.  It probably has been pretty tough for her to find one.

Do you think it common for an attorney to hold a case file rather than just give everything to the former client?

[Calm]

Perhaps a lawyer could share what is required in discovery?

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, provoman said:

Do you think it common for an attorney to hold a case file rather than just give everything to the former client?

It's called an attorney lien and attorneys are allowed to hold onto a file until payment is made in full.

I seldom do it but others do.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Exiled

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps a lawyer could share what is required in discovery?

Briefly:

1. "Discovery" encompasses all efforts by the parties to gather evidence favorable to their position.  

2. Very often, "discovery" is referenced in terms of one party using procedural rules to extract information, paperwork, testimony, etc. from the other side.  Attorneys use the following discovery methods:

• "Interrogatories" are written questions that the other side is legally obligated to fully and honestly answer in writing within a specific time period (usually 30 days).
• "Requests for Production of Documents" are written requests that the other side produce documents, communications, business records, etc. within a specific time period (again, usually 30 days).
• "Requests for Admission" are written statements that one side sends to the other and requires the other party to either admit or deny them in writing (again, usually within 30 days).
• "Depositions" are where one side scheduled a formal examination of a person (someone on the other side, a witness, etc.) that is A) under oath, B) recorded by a court reporter, C) involving attorneys for both sides.
• "Subpoenas" are written requests, similar to the above items, but directed by a party to a non-party to the litigation (such as a witness, an employer, etc.).

3. As I understand it, the Church sent discovery requests (likely some combination of first three methods above) to Ms. Denson's attorneys, and the attorneys did not send responses, and instead withdrew from the case.

4. Failure to timely and fully respond to discovery requests can lead to some fairly severe results in litigation.  However, usually the Court requires the parties to do all they can to work out such disputes before going to the judge.

5. Just yesterday Ms. Denson requested, and apparently received, an extension of time - to July 10 - to find new attorneys.  If and when she gets someone to represent her, they will need to work very quickly to respond to the still-not-yet-answered-or-fully-answered discovery requests from the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, provoman said:

My opinion is, Denson or someone closely associated with her leaked the police recording to the media. A KUTV anchor refers to the tape as leaked. 

I am not positive, but I suspect that Craig Vernon/Denson would have access to the audio under different authorization for access than any of the known three entities/people currently appealing denial of access to the tape.

Got it, thanks. Provo you seem to know a lot about the case, good to read your posts.

[smac97]

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Were you aware of the abuse before she got there?  Or was it when she got there she had…

--Bishop: No.  She came in.

--BYUPD: Oh, okay.

--Bishop: In some way that was the foundation of her struggles with life.

--BYUPD: Oh, gotcha.  Okay. So what was your relationship? How’d that go?

--Bishop: Well, it started off counseling, trying to help her, type thing.  She seemed, well that’s about it.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So did things escalate from there?

--Bishop: I think that’s a good way of putting it.

--BYUPD: Okay.  How did it escalate?

--Bishop: Well, I really don’t know.  It just, it just, she, just one item after another would come in, and that kind of thing.

--BYUPD: So how many times did you meet with her?  Did you meet with her like one on one? Or how did, so there was times when you were alone with her?

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So it sounds like that relationship, that friendship, whatever it was, it got physical?

--Bishop: Yes.

I thought this response was potentially significant.  He admits that the "relationship ... got physical."  Still vague, though.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Okay.  And how did that, can you tell me about that?

--Bishop: What I remember of it, and what she remembers of it, is not the same.

--BYUPD: Oh, you know, there’s always two sides.  That’s why we’re here, so.

--Bishop: I want to be honest, because my position is I’m not, I’ve got a heart condition.  85. I’m not going to be around much longer.

--BYUPD: Sure.

--Bishop: So what I say here needs to be, well it needs to be anyway, based upon truth, because I’m going to be meeting my Maker pretty soon.

--BYUPD: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].

--Bishop: I want what I say here to be reflected there.  I don’t know how that’s going to turn out.

I'd like to think that the above exchange is illustrative of a desire by Bishop to be candid.  However, it could also have been him buttering them up (or trying to).

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: [Chuckles].  None of us do. And you know, as priesthood holders, I think that probably the best thing you could do is just to be honest.  You know, let’s just put it out, I don’t know if you’ve ever…

The interviewer does a pretty good job here.  The questioning technique is good.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Okay.  So things escalated.  You’re the president of the MTC.  She has some issues, like past abuse or something from a…

--Bishop: Well, she’d been abused.  She was, she seemed to be very street-smart.

--BYUPD: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].

--Bishop: She’d had a baby out of wedlock.  And there was obviously struggling with that.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So then how’d things go?  What happened?

--Bishop: There’s so much I, the little things, she, I remember one occasion.  They called me and said she had gone over to the temple, and she was in a wedding dress, and it was just a fun thing she was doing with some of the other missionaries.  Role-playing getting married, etc.

--BYUPD: At the temple?

--Bishop: Yeah.

--BYUPD: Like on the temple grounds?  Or were they inside the temple?

--Bishop: On the temple grounds.

--BYUPD: Okay.

--Bishop: I don’t remember much, except that I went over to the temple, got her, brought her back, told her, you know, it wasn’t appropriate, etc.

I think this is the first time the McKenna-Denson-put-on-a-wedding-dress-and-role-played-getting-married-while-she-was-in-the-MTC story has been disclosed publicly.

And it's a weird thing for her to have done.  I wonder if this is accurate.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].

--Bishop: She then, she came in one time, and I’m talking about hearsay of her, what I remember of her saying things to me.  And then there’s the other side, what I did. So.

--BYUPD: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].

--Bishop: She had some kind of an escapade with some guy.  And there was intimacy.

--BYUPD: At the MTC or somewhere else?

--Bishop: No, somewhere else.  I just remember her telling me about it.  And this guy, they’d been intimate, but I don’t think there was intercourse.  There was everything but intercourse, as she’s explaining. But she was telling me about he, apparently there was a crib in the room, wherever they were.  And that was, he had fathered a child, and so she was telling me that this was going on when he was, you know, she was, she wasn’t happy about his approaching her when he had impregnated another lady.  That’s just one of the little things. She’d had a checkered life. I remember another thing she said was that, and she couldn’t remember this, we talked about it. [Few seconds pause.] Just left me. Just trying to bring it up now.  Bottom line, well, and she’d had, and she couldn’t remember this, and I don’t understand this, but she’d had, she’d gone to the Church somewhere and got an operation the Church paid for some way. To have breast enhancement, which led to the what...

--BYUPD: Was this...

--Bishop: ...And I know that to be true.

--BYUPD: Was that before or after…

--Bishop: It was during this whole process.

--BYUPD: While she was at the MTC?

--Bishop: She was still at the MTC.

--BYUPD: So she had a breast augmentation while at the MTC?

--Bishop: Prior to.

--BYUPD: Prior to.

--Bishop: Prior to the MTC.

--BYUPD: Okay.

--Bishop: And this I feel comfortable, I talked to her about it, and she just laughed, that this was not the case.  Because a man, somebody, a Church official, called. And he was upset that the Church had paid for this. Did I know of this kind of thing.  And I tried to defend her because, one, it was already done. I don’t know how you take that away.

A few thoughts here:

1. The interviewer's questioning technique really breaks down here.  He fails to get to any specifics as to the who/what/when/where/why/how about "this guy," and about the breast augmentation claim.

2. The claim about her getting a breast augmentation paid for by the Church is *really* weird, both because it seems very unlikely that the Church would have paid for such a thing, and also because Ms. Denson flatly denies having had such a procedure prior to going into the MTC.  A picture of her at the MTC:

3. I'm befuddled as to what this claim does to Joseph Bishop's credibility and competency.  Is he telling the truth?  Lying (and if so, why would he lie about this detail)?  Is he confabulating (confusing Ms. Denson for someone else)?

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: So then what was your involvement?  At what point, it sounds like there was a lot of drama around her while she was at the MTC.  So what led to the point where you got involved with her?

--Bishop: My marital life wasn’t going well.  So there’s that kind of intrigue on the side. So I had, my office was sometimes very busy, so I found a place where I could go and do some, do my work without too much interruption.  It was kind of, used to be an, I don’t think it’s in a basement, but it’s the back end of the MTC storage kind of place. I used to go there quietly to work.

--BYUPD: In the main admin building?

--Bishop: It was the end of the admin building, looking north.

--BYUPD: So if you went to the north end of the, kind of by the cafeteria?

--Bishop: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].

--BYUPD: Okay.

--Bishop: Yeah, the end of the cafeteria.

--BYUPD: Okay.

--Bishop: Smelly place.  It was near the cafeteria and all the, well, it wasn’t too smelly.  Anyway, I don’t remember how, whether I invited her, whether she just came, but I was there and she came, and we talked about, I talked about, she talked about, I can’t remember, but the breast augmentation.  I got, I wanted to, I wanted to see her breasts, how the operation, etc. Couple of reasons. One, just being the ‘natural man.’ That was one thing. The other thing was I thought maybe if, maybe that would be a good thing for my marriage.  I don’t know why I thought that, because my wife was not, you know. So it was probably the ‘natural man’ more than anything else. But she...

Again, the questioning technique is poor here.  He fails to pin down any details about this, which is a significant omission given that they are discussing the central allegation of misconduct.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: You’re fine.  So did you, so you and Sister Hughes, how many times would you say, before it led up to this…

--Bishop: Had I met with her?

--BYUPD: ...had you met with her privately?  You talked about maybe some personal stuff on your side of it?

--Bishop: I can’t answer that, I don’t remember.

--BYUPD: Okay.  How was that room set up?

--Bishop: It was a storage room, as I recall.  Had a little table where I could work, etc.

--BYUPD: What else was in there?  So you had a table?

--Bishop: I can’t remember.  Just an old storage room. Maybe a workroom type.

--BYUPD: So you don’t remember anything else being in there?

--Bishop: I’m sure there was a lot of stuff I do not remember.

--BYUPD: Who had access to that room?

--Bishop: I’m assuming the maintenance people.  It was just kind of not in use when I, I don’t know how I even, I was not looking for it, but it came up one time and I ‘there, I can go there and get some work done.’

--BYUPD: Is there work that you do there that you couldn’t do in your office?

--Bishop: The type of work I could do there was the quiet meditation work.  We had this problem, we had this problem, I could do this, I could do that, and how to work with, you know, that kind of thing.  It was the quiet type of thing.

--BYUPD: Was there a telephone in that room?

--Bishop: No.

--BYUPD: Was there a TV in that room?

--Bishop: No.

--BYUPD: Was there a chair in that room?

--Bishop: Must have been, because I didn’t stand up to work.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So possibly there was, for sure a table?  You’d mentioned that earlier.

--Bishop: I can’t remember if it was a table or a workbench, but some, yes.

--BYUPD: Some type of thing.  And possibly a chair?

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: Was there a bed in there?

--Bishop: No.

--BYUPD: There was no bed?  Okay.

--Bishop: This was a work type thing.

--BYUPD: Was there a VCR in there?  Okay. So it sounds like there was some type of a workbench or table, and possibly a chair?  Was there any other storage items in there?

--Bishop: I don’t know.  I don’t recall.

This questioning is pretty good.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: You don’t remember, you don’t recall the time.  Okay. So let me just kind of recap so I get it right. So you don’t know if she followed you, if you invited her...

--Bishop: No, no no.  I’m sure it wasn’t, I’m sure that she didn’t follow me.  I’m trying to take responsibility.

--BYUPD: And I appreciate it.

--Bishop: I don’t remember how it occurred, but I don’t think she followed me in.  I think it was like my invite, or something that got us there together.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So then did you ask her to expose her breasts?

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: Okay.  All right.

--Bishop: I don’t remember it, but I’m sure I did.

--BYUPD: Kay.

--Bishop: I mean it just was…

--BYUPD: Okay.  So you enter the room, you ask her to expose her breasts, you say.  Did she willingly, did she, you said, she had pulled up…

--Bishop: As I recall, she just pulled up her, I don’t think…

--BYUPD: No, that’s fine.

--Bishop: ...I don’t think she took any clothes off.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So it sounds like she could have pulled up a blouse or a shirt or something that she was wearing.

--Bishop: Yeah, as I recall, like that.

--BYUPD: Did you see bare skin...

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: ...or was it a garments?  So it was bare skin.

--Bishop: Yeah.  I think so.

--BYUPD: Okay.  So after she pulls her shirt up and exposes her breasts, what happens after that?

--Bishop: Nothing.

Again, pretty good questioning here.  This is the most straight-from-the-horse's-mouth recollection of the event in question that we have seen from Joseph Bishop.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: You make a comment?  You say you don’t remember touching, but...

--Bishop: I’m sure I made a comment. I don’t remember anything other than that.  And that she then left. Here’s where our stories...she then, she said that I tried to rape her, and that I would have except that I couldn’t get an erection.  The one thing that was clear in my mind through this was the sin of intercourse wasn’t going to happen. I wasn’t, I was titillated to the point of wanting to see her breasts, but I would not, I don’t, I could not have, in my mind’s eye I couldn’t have done that.  It would be too crossing the line.

--BYUPD: Mm-hmm.

I think we can see here how Ms. Denson's fake interview may have had a deleterious effect on her own case.  Rather than let the police do their job, she ran down to Arizona, interviewed him, made all sorts of disturbing accusations, and put him on his guard.  I can't help but wonder if he would have been more forthcoming if he hadn't known the specifics of Ms. Denson's claims against him.

Once again, we see Ms. Denson torpedoeing her own case by acting rashly.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--Bishop: So I was playing around with a firecracker.

--BYUPD: So you said you couldn’t have done it because you couldn’t get an erection?

--Bishop: My commit, my, no, no, that’s her story.

--BYUPD: Oh, that’s her story.  Okay.

--Bishop: I couldn’t have done it because of my belief that that would have been beyond what I could have done.  I wouldn’t have done that.

--BYUPD: When you say ‘titillated,’ you think you had an erection?  Did you have an erection?

--Bishop: I don’t remember any of that?  It’s probably the wrong word.

He describes an attractive young woman as a "firecracker."  Not sure how much significance we should attach to that.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: So how can you just…

--Bishop: It was interesting to me to talk to somebody who has had all of that experience in life.  And how she felt about it. Kinda helped me through my stuff, because the physical part of our marriage was where we didn’t see eye to eye.

--BYUPD: So how would you be able to, like, how do you explain why there’s such a difference in your remembering of what happened and what she is remembering what happened?

--Bishop: I have two thoughts.  One, that it was so serious, that I buried it, which is possible.  Two, that it’s, I had in my work at the MTC, we often had, not often, but we had sisters come in who had been abused.  And through that counseling, not with me, but with our counseling department, I found that sometimes telling a story gets augmented, and pretty soon the sisters have a firm conviction that this happened, when it may or may not have.

This is another potentially important admission.  He admits that he could have done something very bad and "buried it {in his mind}."  He says this "is possible."

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: The sisters or with elders?

--Bishop: That sisters that had been abused. The sisters that came and [unintelligible].  I do know that’s the case. I have a friend who is accused by his daughter of abusing her.  Apparently it wasn’t true, but she had in her mind, her father loving her was transformed to abuse.  I don’t know, brethren. I wish I did. I have absolutely, all I can tell you is that I have absolutely no memory, absolutely no memory, of that.  At all. All I remember is her raising her blouse to show me her breasts. I’m sure I asked for that. I can’t imagine that she would just do that without that.  But I don’t remember any of the other, and she does. And I have to, I’m in a quandary about that.

This seems like a very clear-cut admission of serious misconduct.  While this could theoretically be attributed to confabulation brought on by some measure of dementia, I'm inclined to conclude that he really did do this terrible thing.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--Bishop: He was an employee at the MTC.

--BYUPD: So he was hired specifically for…

--Bishop: He was hired, not specifically for [Deleted].

--BYUPD: But as a, at the MTC as a crisis worker, or mental health, or counselor?

--Bishop: Right.  Counselor.

--BYUPD: Okay.  [Deleted] his name?

--Bishop: Mm-hmm [Affirmative].  He came to my office and said that [Deleted] what he wanted to do was to keep her in a good environment.  She had a recollection of, seems like an uncle. Her thing was she was sexually abused by several members of her family, maybe an uncle, maybe a stepfather, I don’t remember that.  But she had that problem. He didn’t want her to go back into that environment, apparently. So he said ‘Let’s keep her here at the MTC, so she’s in the environment.’ Give her a job working in housekeeping at the MTC, as I recall.  Then asked if my wife and I would take her into our home because she, he didn’t want her living in that bad environment. So we did that. With us for a while. Then she got better enough to go out. She kind of became a member of the family, in a way.

--BYUPD: Is there anything that happened between you and [Deleted] [Unintelligible]?

--Bishop: Yes.  In the house, she came in one evening, wanted a backrub.  I gave her a backrub that was not, not planned. It was a surprise to me.  Anyway, it was towards the buttocks area also, the whole back. And then that stopped and she went to bed.  And I thought ‘Well, that was not appropriate. That was my best, that was not appropriate.’

--BYUPD: So was that backrub, was it on the clothes, over the clothes, or something else?

--Bishop: Over the clothes.  Jammies, I think, she had on.

--BYUPD: So was there skin-to-skin contact?

--Bishop: I don’t recall, but I don’t think so.

--BYUPD: So it was a backrub that worked into the lower back?

--Bishop: Well, the whole back, and ended up down lower than it should have been.

--BYUPD: On the buttocks? Or something else?

--Bishop: Yeah.

--BYUPD: And did it move to the front of her body?

--Bishop: No.  No, no.

--BYUPD: Okay.  Did it go anywhere besides her buttocks?

--Bishop: I don’t, that was about it.

The questioning is pretty good here.

Also, this situation sure was a difficult one.  The sister missionary described above was suicidal, and much of that was attributable to abuse she had experienced at home.  Sending her home was therefore problematic, but the suicidal ideation made keeping her in the MTC impractical.  So the therapist's solution to have her stay with the MTC president was proposed.  In hindsight, it was obviously a bad idea, and Joseph Bishop should have said no, or else asked that alternative arrangements be made for her.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Okay.  All right. So you, this is quite a few years ago.  Since then I’m sure you’ve been through your fair share of temple recommend interviews.  Did your wife ever know about this?

--Bishop: The [Deleted] thing?

--BYUPD: Yes.  No, not [Deleted].  With either one of them?

--Bishop: I don’t think so.

--BYUPD: So you never cleared that with your wife, then?  It never was something that, okay.

--Bishop: No.  It wasn’t, it was a thing, no I did not.

--BYUPD: Okay.  But you said you took care of it ecclesiastically?

--Bishop: Yes.  Both cases.

--BYUPD: Through a bishop or somebody else?

--Bishop: Bishop.

--BYUPD: Was it somebody higher than that?  A stake president? Was it while you were mission president?  At what point in your life did you try to make that right?

--Bishop: Oh, right away.

--BYUPD: Were you still the MTC president when you…

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: Do you remember who you talked to about it?

--Bishop: I don’t.

--BYUPD: Did you stay on as president after you had…

--Bishop: Yes.

--BYUPD: So you continued on with your duties as the MTC president?  Okay.

If he is telling the truth here (that he confessed to his bishop), this seems to be potentially the most damaging to the Church's legal position.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: Well, she’s accused you of more physical and forcible contact, including rape.

--Bishop: Including rape?

--BYUPD: Yes.

--Bishop: Or attempted rape?

--BYUPD: Well, rape is just any penetration at all.  It doesn’t even have to be lengthy or anything at all.

--Bishop: Well, in my mind it didn’t happen, so.  [Deleted] lied to me.

--BYUPD: In what way?

--Bishop: We had this meeting.  And I apologized. And she, she wanted to know, she’s mad at the Church.  And I understand why. Because [Deleted] took this case, my case, apparently to Elder [Deleted].  And I never heard from Elder Asay, so she things the Church is, not only this, but she’s had trouble, you know, she struggled with the Church.  And with her husband, they’re now divorced. I don’t know what happened there, but she’s made at him because he, he’s a good LDS guy. Taught Gospel Doctrine, and she, anyway.  I don’t know the details of that. But she, where was I going with this?

This is an interesting bit.  Whoever censored the recording censors one reference to an "Elder _________," but then immediately afterwards does not censor a reference to "Elder Asay."  Could he have been referring to another General Authority?  One other than Elder Asay?

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: You said she had lied to you.

--Bishop: Oh.  So I called her back, and she said ‘Did Elder [Deleted] ever approach you?’, and I said ‘No, he never did.’  And then I got to thinking later that someone had called me that probably came from Elder [Deleted] office. And I had told them about what I’m telling you, and that I had taken care of it ecclesiastically.  Same way as if you were my bishop today. And she, so I said, I was trying to say ‘Don’t blame the Church, don’t blame Elder Asay.’ I need to be fair to [Deleted] that probably came from Elder [Deleted]. He did follow up on your case.’  So then she said ‘Well, I’ve decided,’ because we had talked also about I didn’t want my children, my grandchildren to be devastated with the actions of, my actions. Didn’t want that to happen. It seems kind of popular today, all the news is about wayward men and their actions.  In the political arena, and all over the place. And I know what it does to those families. Looking at that, I’m like, wow, that’s there. She said that she had decided not to, that she accepted my statement of, she had forgiven me, in a word. She said that. Forgiven me. And I thought, anyway, and I told her this other thing about Elder Asay, and that’s the last conversation.

Again, here we have a reference to "Elder [Deleted]'s office," but thereafter an uncensored reference to "Elder Asay."  I am curious if Mr. Bishop is referencing another General Authority here.

On 6/22/2019 at 9:02 PM, smac97 said:

--Bishop: Well, you want to, this happened, this happened, when it really didn’t happen.  She wanted to accuse me of rape. Didn’t happen. But what did happen was the foundation for her to try, huh, that sounds like casting the blame on her.  This girl has had a lot of problems in her life. Baby out of wedlock. She’s kind of like a feminist. She’s going to get you. Life, not me, but life. She’s not going to put up with it.  She’s very tough. She’s very tough. She’s been through a lot. In the MTC, my heart went out to her. She’s just been through a lot. Very street-wise. She told me this story, which I’ve mentioned before.  Did you have bikers? She told me this story that, a male that had abused her when she was younger, that she had some biker friends, and they were going to go beat up on him, type thing. So she was for retribution.  And she told me the same thing, but she couldn’t remember, she said she didn’t have any biker friends. And [Unintelligible] what is it, a story that you told way back when?

As I recall, Ms. Denson denies ever having had anything to do with "biker friends."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I thought this response was potentially significant.  He admits that the "relationship ... got physical."  Still vague, though.

However, he could be thinking in terms of spiritual vs physical and meaning just looking, rather than touching ( at least I would argue that if I was his lawyer).  

 

Quote

I think this is the first time the McKenna-Denson-put-on-a-wedding-dress-and-role-played-getting-married-while-she-was-in-the-MTC story has been disclosed publicly.

And it's a weird thing for her to have done.  I wonder if this is accurate.

I think he mentions something to do with temple pictures in the Denson interview.  I am guessing this is the same incident.  Iirc she dismissed this as relating to her, but it might have been too vague for her to recognize.  Otoh, she may have wanted to deny anything that made her look flirtatious or street smart/experienced as he called her, made a big deal of imo.  That was why he was fascinated by her (intrigued was his word).

So he could be accurate in his memory.  The fact that an anonymous, but longtime poster on another forum (LDSFF iirc) guessed who she was and published her original name prior to her name being released makes me think she probably did more than one noticeable thing.

 

Quote

3. I'm befuddled as to what this claim does to Joseph Bishop's credibility and competency.  Is he telling the truth?  Lying (and if so, why would he lie about this detail)?  Is he confabulating (confusing Ms. Denson for someone else)?

Again, the questioning technique is poor here.  He fails to pin down any details about this, which is a significant omission given that they are discussing the central allegation of misconduct.

I am wondering if they moved on because he seemed to be less than solid on this, positive he was right, but delivery wasn't smooth...Iirc, this is early on and he may be still waking up.

Quote

I think we can see here how Ms. Denson's fake interview may have had a deleterious effect on her own case.  Rather than let the police do their job, she ran down to Arizona, interviewed him, made all sorts of disturbing accusations, and put him on his guard.  I can't help but wonder if he would have been more forthcoming if he hadn't known the specifics of Ms. Denson's claims against him.

Once again, we see Ms. Denson torpedoeing her own case by acting rashly.

And if he does have memory issues, a good lawyer can claim the interview tainted things and made him imagine he was remember stuff that she suggested to him, etc.

Quote

He describes an attractive young woman as a "firecracker."  Not sure how much significance we should attach to that.

I got the impression he was just talking about sex, sexual drive being hard to control when it gets going kind of thing.

Quote

This is another potentially important admission.  He admits that he could have done something very bad and "buried it {in his mind}."  He says this "is possible."

I wonder how likely this is though, to completely forget.  It makes a nice story line for movies and tv, but actual documented cases...would be interested if repressed memories happen for perpetrators as well as victims (it is much more limited in victims than often claimed).

 

Quote

As I recall, Ms. Denson denies ever having had anything to do with "biker friends."

Yep.  If she continues to deny it (not sure how one could check up on that, maybe her exhusband?), it calls into question the reliability of Bishop's memories as he is quite detailed here, this is not a vague memory and he is positive it is her.  If she changes her story, it calls into question her reliability.  This hurts her either way imo.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

So he could be accurate in his memory.  The fact that an anonymous, but longtime poster on another forum (LDSFF iirc) guessed who she was prior to her name being released makes me think she probably did more than one noticeable thing.

Also this from someone who apparently was there "Many of us have been interviewed by defense lawyers in the case, but none of the information has made it into the news." that is a post from September 2018.

[Rain]

The idea with censoring names and possibly being 2 people. I could have sworn her name was censored at least once and then "sister Hughes" wasn't censored later. Either I am mistaken on them both being the same person or the censoring just may have been done badly. Not worth it to me to recheck, but maybe someone else noticed?

[jpv]

On 6/25/2019 at 6:30 PM, Calm said:

The fact that an anonymous, but longtime poster on another forum (LDSFF iirc)

I think it's the place formerly known as MormonHub.  June Hughes was the name. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by jpv
Name

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, jpv said:

I think it's the place formerly known as MormonHub.  June Hughes was the name. 

Could have been.  When researching, I wander all over.

[esodije]

On 6/25/2019 at 2:46 PM, smac97 said:

 The claim about her getting a breast augmentation paid for by the Church is *really* weird, both because it seems very unlikely that the Church would have paid for such a thing, and also because Ms. Denson flatly denies having  had such a procedure prior to going into the MTC.  A picture of her at the MTC:

I hadn’t previously appreciated the irony of your word choice. Funny stuff.

Edited June 29, 2019 by esodije

[esodije]

So, does anyone know whether Denson has found other counsel to rep her in the lawsuit? (I read somewhere that she asked the court for an extension, to July 10 or thereabouts, to find another lawyer.) The good folks at Mormon Discussions were pretty sure that the new lawyer(s) would  have stumbled upon a huge windfall based on Bishop’s statement to the BYUPD that he’d immediately confessed his 1984 misdeeds with Denson (whatever they were) to some ecclesiastical leader—implying the church knew it had happened but had not removed him as MTC president on account of it. I’m curious to know if substitute lawyers will think likewise.

[smac97]

On 6/29/2019 at 11:13 AM, esodije said:

I hadn’t previously appreciated the irony of your word choice. Funny stuff.

Oops.  It was not intentional.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, esodije said:

the new lawyer(s) would  have stumbled upon a huge windfall based on Bishop’s statement to the BYUPD

Seems like Vernon would hVe been well aware of this. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, esodije said:

So, does anyone know whether Denson has found other counsel to rep her in the lawsuit? (I read somewhere that she asked the court for an extension, to July 10 or thereabouts, to find another lawyer.) The good folks at Mormon Discussions were pretty sure that the new lawyer(s) would  have stumbled upon a huge windfall based on Bishop’s statement to the BYUPD that he’d immediately confessed his 1984 misdeeds with Denson (whatever they were) to some ecclesiastical leader—implying the church knew it had happened but had not removed him as MTC president on account of it. I’m curious to know if substitute lawyers will think likewise.

I don't know, but....if Denson is suing the church because they should have known that Bishop was a predator before he was put in a position of authority over Denson and therefore should never have been called, then wouldn't that mean that any information the church got after Denson's alleged abuse be irrelevant to issue of the church's liablity in Denson being abused?

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, esodije said:

So, does anyone know whether Denson has found other counsel to rep her in the lawsuit? (I read somewhere that she asked the court for an extension, to July 10 or thereabouts, to find another lawyer.)

Haven't seen anything online.  And there has not yet been a "Notice of Appearance" filed by an attorney on behalf of Ms. Denson in the federal case.

Quote

The good folks at Mormon Discussions were pretty sure that the new lawyer(s) would  have stumbled upon a huge windfall based on Bishop’s statement to the BYUPD that he’d immediately confessed his 1984 misdeeds with Denson (whatever they were) to some ecclesiastical leader—implying the church knew it had happened but had not removed him as MTC president on account of it. I’m curious to know if substitute lawyers will think likewise.

I think the value of Joseph Bishop's disclosures to the BYUPD is limited.  The most damning thing to which he admits is that he took Ms. Denson to a room nearby the MTC cafeteria (or else met her there) and asked her to show him her breasts, and she complied.  He also says that Ms. Denson had a breast augmentation procedure done prior to entering the MTC, and also that she had some "biker" friends.  As I recall, she strongly denies all of these things.  

In other words, it's not much of a smoking gun to say that Joseph Bishop made inculpatory admissions to BYUPD when Ms. Denson is denying that the things he is admitting to ever took place.

I'll be curious to see if she can find a firm to represent her.  I wonder if Mr. Vernon has some sort of contractual right to a portion of any proceeds Ms. Denson receives (as compensation for the work he has done and the expenses he incurred prior to withdrawing).  This may have an impact on the overall "value" of the case to a law firm.

Also, Ms. Denson has repeatedly said she refuses to settle.  And since she's destroyed what settlement leverage she may have had, it seems unlikely that the Church will settle, either.  That means proceeding with litigation.  This means there would be substantial amount of up-front work that the new firm would need to do to get "up to speed" on the case.  Lots of attorney time would be spend on such an effort.  Also, there is apparently a serious failure to provide discovery responses to the Church's attorneys, a problem which could also take a lot of time to address, and which may be very difficult to address given Ms. Denson's erratic and unreliable nature.  

Also, I suspect the Church's discovery requests have not been answered because A) they must be answered honestly and truthfully, B) the Church's attorney's likely have evidence sufficient to catch Ms. Denson in any dishonest answers, and C) honest answers to the discovery requests could be very damaging to her legal claims and her credibility as a witness.  But if she refuses to cooperate in responding to the discovery request, she risks getting punished by the Court (discovery sanctions can be fairly severe, even up to a dismissal of the case).

Also, there are some very significant problems relating to Ms. Denson's legal claims.  The statute of limitations issue is still out there.  Who knew what and when are all very important.  Ms. Denson has the burden of proof to overcome the limitations issue, hence the reason Craig Vernon spent many thousands of dollars deposing Joseph Bishop, Elder Wells, Ron Leavitt, and who knows how many others.  I am curious as to whether anything significant or helpful came out of these depositions.  If so, I would think Ms. Denson, ever the uncontrollable blabbermouth, would have announced such things to the world.  That we haven't heard anything may indicate that the depositions did not yield much in the way of evidence supportive of Ms. Denson's claims.

But perhaps the most salient point is that Ms. Denson is apparently a loose cannon.  She seems incapable of controlling herself, as evidenced by the many, many instances in which she has done something utterly boneheaded and harmful to her legal position.

Would any law firm be willing to take on such a troubled and time-consuming and risky lawsuit?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2019 by smac97

[esodije]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would any law firm be willing to take on such a troubled and time-consuming and risky lawsuit?

My thoughts exactly. Denson is the Client From Hell, and Bishop is the Material Witness From Hell.

[provoman]

Random update:

On another board it is being reported that BYUPD offered mediation regarding the BYUPD records requests concerning the interview and reports of Bishop.

[smac97]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:27 PM, provoman said:

Random update:

On another board it is being reported that BYUPD offered mediation regarding the BYUPD records requests concerning the interview and reports of Bishop.

 That seems like an odd proposal. If you BYU PD is subject to government records requests laws, then that compliamce should not he contingent on some sort of mediated agreement.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by smac97