BYU police of Joseph Bishop interview tape released

[Calm]

On 6/17/2019 at 5:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Why is it that I am thinking that was not done, and that BYU PD dragged their feet in disclosing all that to the victims and their attorneys.  Am I wrong about that also?  How many decades after the fact are we now?  Did the D.A.'s office deliberately withhold discovery? 

You seem to be unclear about the timeline and when and what things were and were not done. 

There is no indication her lawyers as well as Denson did not see the full report relatively quickly.  I am pretty sure they mentioned it in the press conference, but I may be conflating times myself.  She has said she has seen it (I think Provoman quoted her earlier placing herself in a greater position of knowledge because she had seen the full report as well as depositions) and there is no indication she felt they had to push to get access to it or it was incomplete.  Nor any complaints from her lawyer.  The Police report was redacted only for the public, not Denson or her lawyers, I believe.

Her lawyer quitting apparently had something to do with discovery, but the issue was with Denson not acting herself, not police or the DA.

Denson never attempted to go to the police herself until November 2017 at which time BYU police investigated quite quickly and turned the info over to the DA, who said he would have prosecuted Bishop but it was too late.  

Pleasant Grove police were likely aware of the accusation back in 2010 when they interviewed her about threatening to kill Bishop with a gun (church leaders having reported her threat as soon as it was received at that time).  They didn't charge her after she told them it was a joke and she didn't own a gun.  The abuse was out of their jurisdiction and past statute of limitations, Denson did not choose st that time to go to BYU or Provo police and report it to those who had jurisdiction.

Denson never said anyone told her not to go to the police iirc.  Rather she said she just assumed church leaders would take care of it.  She also said she never talked about the rape with either Leavitt or Asay though it is ambiguous and may mean she never used the word "rape".  It is unclear exactly what she claims she did say because of that phrasing (just sharing taking her down into the secondary office, private counseling sessions where they talked about his sexual relationship with his wife and other times he was in compromising positions because of a woman flirting with him or exposing herself in public...or did she describe the alleged attack without saying it was rape?)

Leavitt was wrong not to act on her accusation of porn watching as he reports it to anyone.  But if his story is accurate, then with what Denson says about not informing anyone else, higherups in the Church had no way of knowing nor did police.

Otoh, if Leavitt is lying and Denson did talked to Asay as she claims, what is the likely scenario that then occurs.  Asay talks to Bishop to hear his side of things.  Bishop denies talking to Asay, but we also know he denied attacking her back in 2010, so if Leavitt is now lying for some reason and instead acted properly as she claims he did and reported it to church leaders who then had Asay look into it and interview her as was also proper, it is likely that Bishop is lying when he said he didn't talk to Asay and instead he just denied it then as he did later in 2010.  

After all, why would he deny it later if he had already confessed to Wells or Asay?  Isn't it more likely he denied it up until he was confronted by Denson herself and she told him she had threatened to kill him?  At that point he needs to explain to police why he confessed to her and he comes up with the exposure story or decides to come clean up to a point, but then confuses Denson with another victim while denying anything like rape occurred.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I think you are misunderstanding several things. 

An adult speaks to another adult about breasts....what police should be called? 

She does not indicate that she reported anything to Elder Monson; what should he have reported to the police?

In 1987, according to her former bishop, she talked about viewing pornography in the MTC; what should have reported to the police?

To Elder Asay, she reported - based on her own words - talking about breasts and a sex less marriage, and she specifically wrote she not report the alleged assault/rape; what should he have reported to the police?

Well, of course, if nothing happened and nothing was said, there would be nothing to report.  So no breasts were bared by the young woman to the MTC Pres, and he did not do anything to violate the law -- or at least not anything that the police could discern, until a very recent disclosure to them in his old age, when it is too late to do anything.  Nor were any leaders informed of a crime.  None at all.  Not her bishop, not her stake pres, and no one else.  Zero.  Then why are we having this discussion, about nothing?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

.....................  Rather she said she just assumed church leaders would take care of it.

But, if she did not report a crime to the leaders, how could they take care of it?  If it was merely a matter of viewing pornography with Joseph Bishop, why would Bishiop Leavitt see that as a crime?  Sure, he could report it to the SP, and so on up the chain of leadership, but it was much too late to do anything about that in a serviceable ecclesiastical sense -- even if she mentioned items which were criminal violations, which it is claimed she did not.

I'd be much more interested in actual crimes committed during a mission, which the leaders actually covered up -- as in the case of the murder of a missionary by his companion in Munday, Texas, years ago, which was carefully handled so as to allow everyone to just walk away.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

One of the adults is in a position of power. Does that make a difference criminally? I ask because I don't know. Lawyers?

IANAL, but my understanding is that adults in a position of power (or trust) are generally only criminally liable when the other party is a minor.

For adults, however, that isn't necessarily the case. If you voluntarily have sex with your college professor, for example, she may be violating an ethical code of conduct and may run the risk of losing her job / license, but she probably won't be going to jail or put on a sex offender registry. 

Now, some states do have laws which potentially criminalize sex when one of the adults is in a position of trust (e.g., therapist, social worker), but from what I have seen, there appear to be plenty of loopholes / caveats there since you're dealing with adults who are capable of consenting. 

 

[provoman]

...........

Edited June 18, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure there was anything that should have been reported to the police at that point (from what I understand).

But, he should have been released from his calling immediately so he did not repeat this behavior with any other missionary under his care, IMO.

My suspicion is that it comes down to what he confessed to, as to why a release did not occur.

[provoman]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, of course, if nothing happened and nothing was said, there would be nothing to report.  So no breasts were bared by the young woman to the MTC Pres, and he did not do anything to violate the law -- or at least not anything that the police could discern, until a very recent disclosure to them in his old age, when it is too late to do anything.  Nor were any leaders informed of a crime.  None at all.  Not her bishop, not her stake pres, and no one else.  Zero.  Then why are we having this discussion, about nothing?

Perhaps your previous post need to end with /s (sarcasm)

While I did think it out of character for you to disparage the Priesthood leaders, you seemed so solid in your conviction of their failures.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

My suspicion is that it comes down to what he confessed to, as to why a release did not occur.

Hasn't he stated what he confessed to?  (I've been trying to keep up....)

I would think that any inappropriate sexual activity or discussions with a sister missionary under his supervision would be cause for release.  This would have been wise just to protect the church as well (from lawsuits such as this one).  

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But, if she did not report a crime to the leaders, how could they take care of it?  If it was merely a matter of viewing pornography with Joseph Bishop, why would Bishiop Leavitt see that as a crime?  Sure, he could report it to the SP, and so on up the chain of leadership, but it was much too late to do anything about that in a serviceable ecclesiastical sense -- even if she mentioned items which were criminal violations, which it is claimed she did not.

 From what I understand....at this point it's just a question of whether he should have remained in the position of MTC president.  If this truly was made known to church leaders, he should have been released immediately, IMO.

But as far as a crime being reported, I don't see any evidence this was done that early on.  (I may have missed something though.)

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure there was anything that should have been reported to the police at that point (from what I understand).

But, he should have been released from his calling immediately so he did not repeat this behavior with any other missionary under his care, IMO.

If Leavitt never told anyone as he claimed, no one with authority to release him knew.

If Denson is telling the truth and Leavitt properly reported it and Asay properly interviewed her, the next steps should have been talking to Bishop and asking other sisters there if such had happened to them.  Bishop denied to church leaders in 2010 that he had done anything (unless someone in the leadership is lying about that, but it makes more sense imo to assume that is accurate given what Bishop is saying now imo).  It is reasonable to assume he denied it if Elder Asay talked to him.  At which point Elder Asay may or may not have taken it further and interviewed other potential victims.  No records of such interviews have been found or a record of Asay talking to Denson, so unlikely such interviews of potential victims took place.  Asay would have had access to Denson's records that likely showed she did not report anything to either her therapist or Elder Monson when she had the chance in 1984.  Therefore if Asay had talked to Denson, imo it ended like happened in 2010, with it left with nothing being done.

At this point in trying to figure out what really happened, the credibility of Denson takes precedence, imo.  Is she telling the truth about talking to Asay?  Can it be confirmed?  She claims her exhusband can confirm it, but does not claim he has.  She also describes him as a pretty loathsome character, but never says he would lie about this iirc.  Her exhusband has publicly said she is a liar.  We have police documents showing she has lied in elaborate ways at numerous other times, taken extreme measures of ingesting razor blades to back up her claim and attempted fraud, possibly blackmail multiple times (the man reporting the alleged blackmail says she bragged to him about being experienced at such.  

Her credibility is therefore imo too low to assume she is telling the truth when there is no independent confirmation and the one she uses says she is a liar.

So we have two documented liars to get the story from at this point...Denson documented by police as a conman and Bishop documented by church records as lying about abuse, denying it ever took place in 2010.  

Not sure therefore how to reconstruct the story past the fact she had counseling sessions with Bishop as seems to be confirmed by her MTC teacher and she knew about his secondary office.

(There is the possibility that Bishop is innocent of any abuse and wasn't lying when he denied accusations in 2010 and instead is a confused old man in a very stressful situation giving a false confession while Denson was lying from the very beginning even to Leavitt, but given at least one other woman coming forward previous to the public scandal and Leavitt's testimony I am prone to think the exposure and way too inappropriate backrub/fondling took place though I have no clue what happened with Denson is she was not the one asked to expose herself).

 

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hasn't he stated what he confessed to?  (I've been trying to keep up....)

I would think that any inappropriate sexual activity or discussions with a sister missionary under his supervision would be cause for release.  This would have been wise just to protect the church as well (from lawsuits such as this one).  

What he confessed to has not been made public.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

What he confessed to has not been made public.

I thought he stated what he confessed to when the police interviewed him (in the tapes from the OP).  I'll listen again though....

ETA:

Do you dispute the info in the OP?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71962-byu-police-of-joseph-bishop-interview-tape-released/

Quote

 

  Quote

But a long sought-after police recording recently obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune offers new details about this controversy, including that Bishop says he immediately told his church leaders about his inappropriate behavior — and still maintained his position of power.

  Quote

But Joseph L. Bishop admitted that during his tenure as Missionary Training Center president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he asked to see a female missionary’s breasts and she complied. He has also said he touched another female missionary inappropriately during a back rub.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/16/when-did-lds-church-know/

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Leavitt never told anyone as he claimed, no one with authority to release him knew.

I agree. But that was still a breakdown at the bottom level (for lack of a better term) and does not excuse the leaders of responsibility here, IMO.  

And Bishop has now stated that he "immediately told his church leaders about his inappropriate behavior".

If that's the case then it was reported twice, correct?

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hasn't he stated what he confessed to?  (I've been trying to keep up....)

I would think that any inappropriate sexual activity or discussions with a sister missionary under his supervision would be cause for release.  This would have been wise just to protect the church as well (from lawsuits such as this one).  

Only in the police interview where he claims he confessed to his bishop immediately afterwards.

But he denied it in 2010 if church leaders are telling the truth.

My choice between Bishop lying again when confronted with his confession to Denson and multiple church leaders over the years hiding the truth of his confession is that one person lying is more probable than multiple people lying.  Especially since if he is telling the truth now, he still lied to Denson when he said no church leader had talked to him about her accusations.

[Bernard Gui]

I’m confused.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree. But that was still a breakdown at the bottom level (for lack of a better term) and does not excuse the leaders of responsibility here, IMO.  

 

I agree.

Denson's claims actually make them less liable since she claims they acted on her accusation and interviewed her.  

The problem then is whether or not Bishop told them anything or denied it as happened in 2010 (unless they are lying about that which leads to too much of a conspiracy for me).  I don't see why he would originally confess and then deny it rather than just stating he had confessed and gone through the process of forgiveness.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Only in the police interview where he claims he confessed to his bishop immediately afterwards.

But he denied it in 2010 if church leaders are telling the truth.

My choice between Bishop lying again when confronted with his confession to Denson and multiple church leaders over the years hiding the truth of his confession is that one person lying is more probable than multiple people lying.  Especially since if he is telling the truth now, he still lied to Denson when he said no church leader had talked to him about her accusations.

I think it's very confusing.  I personally believe he should have been released (if even one of them is telling the truth, but they both are saying this abuse occurred and was reported to church leaders....or confessed to.)

I do wish if there is truly another victim who has come forward (as once reported, iirc), we knew what they stated.  That could clear a lot up regarding Bishop's behavior as MTC president.  At this point though we just have the words of the two involved in this case (and Leavitt's account).

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.

Denson's claims actually make them less liable since she claims they acted on her accusation and interviewed her.  

But Leavitt does not deny that she came to him at that time, does he?

If so, he should have passed the information up the line of authority so it could have at least been looked into.  If Bishop had also gone to his church leaders and confessed, that would have been discovered at that time and he hopefully would have been removed from serving as MTC president.

I understand that in hindsight, it's easy to see what should have taken place, but it does not change the fact that the leaders were made aware that potential abuse was taking place (according to Bishop, Denson and Leavitt). 

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought he stated what he confessed to when the police interviewed him (in the tapes from the OP).  I'll listen again though....

ETA:

Do you dispute the info in the OP?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71962-byu-police-of-joseph-bishop-interview-tape-released/

 

The interview video, in my opinion, is deliberately void of verifiable context. When ryan mcknight, or Corbin Volluz, or sltrib (these are 3 known entities/persons seeking the recording) release the full interview then we will get a better understanding of what he claims he confessed to.

He admitted to police specific things. To my knowledge there is no admission from him that he confessed those same specific things to anyone.

Infact, I believe in 2017 he admitted in the secret recording that he denied any improper contact when approach in 2010. Yet it would seem that he admits to police 2017 what he denied in 2010.

Edited June 18, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

On 6/18/2019 at 10:08 AM, Bernard Gui said:

I’m confused.

It gets very confusing because of conflicting stories.

Events as they happened...

1)  Bishop has counseling sessions with Denson and possibly others.  Something sexual happens with someone(s); possibly inappropriate talk, possible abuse but not criminal (breast exposure and/or fondling back rub), possibly rape.

2) Denson says she tells no one even when given a therapist and interview with Elder Monson while on her mission in 1984.

3) After her mission in 1987 she goes to her bishop, Ron Leavitt.

Possibilities...

4a) Her former bishop telling the truth means the accusation was about watching porn with Bishop.  Nothing happened as far as discipline with Bishop until 2010 when two accusations are made (per the Church statement) and Bishop denies everything.  

4b) Denson telling the truth means proper response with Leavitt reporting to higherups in 87 and Elder Asay interviewing Denson.  Unknown what happens then as no records.  Asay could have been the one to be dismissive and done nothings after interview.  Or more likely in my view, he at least talks to Bishop...who likely denies it as he does later in 2010.

5) skip to late 2017:  Bishop denies talking to Asay to Denson which is in line with Leavitt's account.  If Bishop is lying about that, makes sense he would lie to Asay and also deny anything happened.  Bishop say "yes" to accusation of molesting, but says he can't remember; emphatically denies rape to Denson.

6) police interview:  Bishop confessed to asking a woman to expose her breasts and touching buttocks during a back rub.  He also claims to have immediately confessed to his bishop, contrary to what he told Denson three days before.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

they both are saying this abuse occurred and was reported to church leaders....or confessed to

Now they are saying it.

Likely he denied it in 2010 unless you think his church leaders lied about that or the Church statement is a lie...why release that at all only to lie though?

Edited June 18, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, provoman said:

The interview video, in my opinion, is deliberately void of verifiable context.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7t-ddjuxzg

Start listening at around 2:10.  He talks about the room where they were alone together (he and Denson), how they discussed her breasts and he wanted to see and touch them "just being the natural man" and "I thought maybe that would be a good thing for my marriage" (but mainly because of him being a "natural man more than anything else").  He denies it went past just looking and possibly touching, but he does admit this took place.

He also states that he confessed to his church leaders and remained in his position as the MTC President:

Quote

 

But Joseph L. Bishop admitted that during his tenure as Missionary Training Center president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he asked to see a female missionary’s breasts and she complied. He has also said he touched another female missionary inappropriately during a back rub.

Those encounters are already publicly known.

But a long sought-after police recording recently obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune offers new details about this controversy, including that Bishop says he immediately told his church leaders about his inappropriate behavior — and still maintained his position of power.

“Did you stay on as president, after you had [confessed]?” an officer asks in the recording.

“Yes,” Bishop responds.

“So you continued with your duties as the MTC president?”

“Mhhmm,” Bishop responds in the affirmative.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Now they are saying it.

Hasn't Leavitt also stated she came to him to report the abuse after it took place?

(I need to review what he stated....I'll look for it....)

Edited June 18, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But Leavitt does not deny that she came to him at that time, does he?

If so, he should have passed the information up the line of authority so it could have at least been looked into.  If Bishop had also gone to his church leaders and confessed, that would have been discovered at that time and he hopefully would have been removed from serving as MTC president.

I understand that in hindsight, it's easy to see what should have taken place, but it does not change the fact that the leaders were made aware that potential abuse was taking place (according to Bishop, Denson and Leavitt). 

No, Leavitt says she came and he did nothing.  We both agree if that was the case, there is liability there.

Otoh, if Denson is telling the truth, Leavitt did something and it went to an investigation by Asay.  Asay would have had the record that Denson had reported nothing in 1984 when asked about her claim of rape in DC (according to Denson).  We also have the claim from the Church Bishop denied everything in 2010, a statement there was no need to release if a lie.  Given Denson's previously saying nothing and Bishop's likely denial, Asay could have reasonably assumed that there was no reason to pursue (I assume no further investigation based on no records or Sisters reporting interviewed at that time).  I think that would have been the wrong choice just as Leavitt's was, but if she didn't report a rape, I don't see what could be reported to the police so at least there from both accounts it seems like that side was handled correctly.

I think given the denial to his local leaders in 2010, I think assuming he confessed to anyone is problematic.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7t-ddjuxzg

Start listening at around 2:10.  He talks about the room where they were alone together (he and Denson), how they discussed her breasts and he wanted to see and touch them "just being the natural man" and "I thought maybe that would be a good thing for my marriage" (but mainly because him being a "natural man more than anything else".  He denies it went past just looking and possibly touching, but he does admit this took place.

He also states that he confessed to his church leaders and remained in his position as the MTC President:

 

That report is slightly inaccurate according to the clip iirc.  He says there he reported to his bishop, not multiple leaders or his boss at the MTC.  He did not give a name when asked for one.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Calm