BYU police of Joseph Bishop interview tape released

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, webbles said:

In the interview, he stated that he confessed about two things: viewing a sister missionary's breasts and rubbing the buttocks of another woman (I can't figure out if she was a sister missionary or just a former sister missionary).  Based off how he explained those two acts to the police officer made me think that he would be downplaying those acts to his church leader.

Actually, it is unclear about the buttocks (unless I AZ m missing something).  The officer asked him if he had touched them in one question and then asked if it was something else in the next question.  Bishop then replied, "yeah."

So was he saying yes to both questions or just one and if one, which one, and if the second what was the something else?

Not saying I think Bishop didn't touch her buttocks. I just like to be clear on things and that isn't clear from the transcript.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Actually, it is unclear about the buttocks (unless I AZ m missing something).  The officer asked him if he had touched them in one question and then asked if it was something else in the next question.  Bishop then replied, "yeah."

So was he saying yes to both questions or just one and if one, which one, and if the second what was the something else?

Not saying I think Bishop didn't touch her buttocks. I just like to be clear on things and that isn't clear from the transcript.

I listened a few times, Bishop said he did go down below her back area.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

In the interview, he stated that he confessed about two things: viewing a sister missionary's breasts and rubbing the buttocks of another woman (I can't figure out if she was a sister missionary or just a former sister missionary).  Based off how he explained those two acts to the police officer made me think that he would be downplaying those acts to his church leader.

This interview has him more passive involvement than the previous one as represented by both Denson’s and his own comments.  He has Denson coming to him rather than him being the one making first contact and taking in the suicidal sister is someone else’s idea. He meets Denson at the secondary office somehow, not bringing her to it as is implied I believe in the first. 

——

The major problem are the conflicts between this interview and the first one. He is positive that it is Denson he is remembering with all his reminiscing, but Denson denied being that person in almost all cases. 

There is the biker friends, the breast enhancement***, the pictures at the temple/pretending to be a bride with elders...all things Denson brushed away as not her.

This is resolved if she was merely lying to create a picture of a naive and powerless young woman rather than the overly assertive, street smart woman of Bishop’s stories.  

But if Denson wasn’t lying and he is confusing her with someone else or creating memories out of whole cloth and they are becoming more detailed as time goes on, this needs to be explained.

And it calls into question his certainty on everything else since he is so insistent these memories are accurate.

Given Denson’s history, high probability she is lying.  If she is and Bishop is accurate, his story comes across as developing too close of relationships with two sisters and having a minor encounter with one where he gives her a back rub over her “jammies” that includes the full back (and if she was sitting up he could have meant he just strayed below where the bikini line would be and not actually touch what we would see as groping, which might be accurate or him trying to downplay his frisky back rub).  With Denson, it comes across as him being friendly and her being adventurous and experienced (and the bride story feels flirtatious to me because brides need grooms).  He leaves it open, imo, to her offering as much as him asking.  If the first, she is talking about her operation, he is curious and she offers to show him what they look like, he accepts and that is it.  He is pretty passive and too curious for his own good.  

He does well at avoiding the creep factor in the second interview.  He slips when mentioning his first wife, but recovers quickly by claiming he is not blaming his wife.

Outside of his admission of asking a sister to expose herself (which he might assume the Church has records on if he did confess, so he felt he had to), he comes out of it much better in the police interview than the Denson interview.

***the breast augmentation has the low probability of a bishop paying out of fast offerings for it and that being discussed with Bishop rather than the locals...unless assuming this is accurate the discussion was over Denson being a missionary, but would that be the MTC president’s call?  Maybe they just called him for a report on her and were explaining why they needed it?

——

As far as his current demeanour, there is a little lack of following the conversation at the beginning and quite a bit of mumbling during the enhancement story. I am guessing the difference with the first interview (where he is weird even before the shock of confrontation) probably was a result of post surgery drugs and tiredness. He appears to be slightly confused at the beginning of this one, but he says he was in bed and it is likely imo the confusion/words being slightly off (were you expecting us/I never know what to do) is a result of not being fully awake. Later on he fills in appropriately when a detective pauses what the detective is about to say, so he is clearly following the conversation here. His responses to questions are just as complete as his stories, unlike the first interview. He is also making lots of connections to the previous interview three days before, so short term memory appears to be good even under stress.

There is still a lot of “I don’t remember”. This may be accurate or him not sure about what evidence they have (there were two accusations in 2010, maybe he wonders if the other victim provided better details) and him providing plausible deniability if he gets caught in fabrication. 

I have to say after listening to that second interview I am more uncertain about what happened than before. Probably knowing that Denson is a conman has coloured my interpretation as well where the first interview I analyzed first from a more neutral view of Denson.  I assumed she was being accurate in her denials of his memories, which meant there needed to be an explanation for his confusion, but if he was right because she was lying, no confusion in memories occurred. His only problems then are his difficulty in following the conversation at times, his passiveness (explained perhaps by her aggressiveness as well as his shock at being confronted and threatened), and his weird storytelling. All could be simply drug related...pain meds are known to cause confusion and this is exacerbated in the elderly and the weird storytelling could be a result of inhibitions being lowered by the drug and the off switch being out of commission on his mouth. He could also have been thrown by Denson’s denials. She kept interrupting and adding material herself while being dismissive of what he said, leading to him being uncertain and insecure in his comments. The detectives never suggested his memories were wrong, likely leading to greater confidence and security. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

In the interview, he stated that he confessed about two things: viewing a sister missionary's breasts and rubbing the buttocks of another woman (I can't figure out if she was a sister missionary or just a former sister missionary).  Based off how he explained those two acts to the police officer made me think that he would be downplaying those acts to his church leader.

That's certainly possible.  However, Bishop needs to be questioned on this as to what was confessed and when.  I don't know if Bishop's deposition has already been taken.  However, at this point, we just don't know.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened a few times, Bishop said he did go down below her back area.  

" 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."

 

__________

Towards and lower than it should have been. It doesn't say below her back or on her buttocks etc.

So the next question should have cleared it up:  "On the buttocks?"

But the officer asked the second question before Bishop answered: "Or something else?"

"--Bishop: Yeah."

So is it likely that Bishop touched them? Yes. Do we know for sure based on this confession? No.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want creeps getting away with things. I just see over and over people reading into things and people being pronounced guilty when they shouldn't be. I probably do it myself too often. 

Which means that based on this confession I still don't know what to believe. Glad it's unlikely I will be on jury duty should it ever go to trial.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Rain

[provoman]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

That's certainly possible.  However, Bishop needs to be questioned on this as to what was confessed and when.  I don't know if Bishop's deposition has already been taken.  However, at this point, we just don't know.

Wells, Bishop, Denson, Leavitt have all been deposed.

Edited June 24, 2019 by provoman

[sunstoned]

Does anyone know what the next steps in this case might be?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 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.

 

__________

Towards and lower than it should have been. It doesn't say below her back or on her buttocks etc.

So the next question should have cleared it up:  On the buttocks?

But the officer asked the second question before Bishop answered: Or something else?

--Bishop: Yeah.

So is it likely that Bishop touched them? Yes. Do we know for sure based on this confession? No.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want creeps getting away with things. I just see over and over people reading into things and people being pronounced guilty when they shouldn't be. I probably do it myself too often. 

Which means that based on this confession I still don't know what to believe. Glad it's unlikely I will be on jury duty should it ever go to trial.

I disagree, at timestamp 32:55 he answered yes to the question if it was on the buttocks. Listen to that part and let me know what you think. ETA: I kept having to listen, and now get what you mean, except at timestamp 33:00 the officer asked if it went anywhere else besides the buttocks, so right there he is agreeing it was on the buttocks, don't you think?

Edited June 24, 2019 by Tacenda

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree, at timestamp 32:55 he answered yes to the question if it was on the buttocks. Listen to that part and let me know what you think. ETA: Please note, he said, "yeah" before the "or something else".

I have not listened, only read the transcript. I have no desire to listen to it, but will take your word at this point that it was before.

[Exiled]

58 minutes ago, provoman said:

Wells, Bishop, Denson, Leavitt have all been deposed.

I hope we get to see what they said.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

I have not listened, only read the transcript. I have no desire to listen to it, but will take your word at this point that it was before.

Did you see where I edited? I listened again and your printed transcript was right but at 33:00 it pretty much substantiated that it was on the buttocks. In my head, everytime I say that word, I think of Forrest Gump saying "on the buttocks" when speaking to a president, lol.

 

 

 

Also, why don't you want to listen to a timestamp Rain? Is it that disheartening to listen to a man like him admit to doing what he did? Although I don't believe he raped anyone. But he definitely shouldn't have done what he did. McKenna lost most of her credibility with me, but for some odd reason I believe several things made her into what she is today, and one being the sexual abuse by her step dad and possibly the interaction with Bishop, but I don't know anything. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Did you see where I edited? I listened again and your printed transcript was right but at 33:00 it pretty much substantiated that it was on the buttocks. In my head, everytime I say that word, I think of Forrest Gump saying "on the buttocks" when speaking to a president, lol.

 

 

 

Also, why don't you want to listen to a timestamp Rain? Is it that disheartening to listen to a man like him admit to doing what he did? Although I don't believe he raped anyone. But he definitely shouldn't have done what he did. McKenna lost most of her credibility with me, but for some odd reason I believe several things made her into what she is today, and one being the sexual abuse by her step dad and possibly the interaction with Bishop, but I don't know anything. 

I didn't see the edit.

Why do you assume that's the reason? 

I have no desire because I spend far too much time on things like this that don't really matter for what I need and want to be doing in my life. Adding audio is just more time. So if it isn't a transcript I'm not likely to "hear" it. I have to draw the line somewhere. 

And yes, responding to you may be taking more time than listening, but I care about you. There is nothing with the Bishop/Denson story that I can change or  make better so I can draw the line there and say it really isn't worth my time.

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I didn't see the edit.

Why do you assume that's the reason? 

I have no desire because I spend far too much time on things like this that don't really matter for what I need and want to be doing in my life. Adding audio is just more time. So if it isn't a transcript I'm not likely to "hear" it. I have to draw the line somewhere. 

And yes, responding to you may be taking more time than listening, but I care about you. There is nothing with the Bishop/Denson story that I can change or  make better so I can draw the line there and say it really isn't worth my time.

 

I just thought it important to listen to a few seconds because in a transcript it's so difficult to understand exactly how something was said. But I'm sorry for asking why you might not like to listen to a timestamp. I appreciate your posts Rain, you've always been very kind when responding to me. 

[Amulek]

On 6/22/2019 at 10:02 PM, smac97 said:

--BYUPD: I said do you know why we’re here?

--Bishop: I have no idea.  I have an idea, but you just tell me.

--BYUPD: All right.

--Bishop: Do I need an attorney?

IANAL but, for the record, the correct answer to this question is "Yes!"

Every. Single. Time.

 

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

IANAL but, for the record, the correct answer to this question is "Yes!"

Every. Single. Time.

 

especially when an attorney is free of charge and is in an upstairs room

[provoman]

17 hours ago, Exiled said:

I hope we get to see what they said.

I am not sure, but I think if there is a trial

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, provoman said:

especially when an attorney is free of charge and is in an upstairs room

It seems strange his son didn't insist.  If his dad didn't want him there and thought it would go away once he 'explained things', I can see him preferring no son around.

But there was too much mention of the priesthood and brethren so it comes across more like a pastoral conversation than a police interrogation and that might work to the police's benefit, but bothers me significantly.  The two shouldn't be mixed.

[Exiled]

17 hours ago, provoman said:

I am not sure, but I think if there is a trial

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.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Exiled

[Tacenda]

26 minutes 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.

After listening to Bishop and the BYU police in the full tape, I think her old attorney should get back in the arena. I believe there is something out there that the church didn't do enough to prohibit Bishop from being in authoritative positions that would enable more abuse.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to Bishop and the BYU police in the full tape, I think her old attorney should get back in the arena. I believe there is something out there that the church didn't do enough to prohibit Bishop from being in authoritative positions that would enable more abuse.

The lawyer knew about the interview before quitting according to Denson, so I doubt he sees it the same way.  It all depends on Bishop and Well's depositions.  He may have specified what he actually told or said he didn't remember details, but Wells  did.  If the confession amounted to Bishop claiming Denson was the instigator and all he did was accept the offer or nothing previous to the MTC having been more than momentary inappropriate feelings in awkward situations (which is how he described the 'hot tub' and Florida incidents), there is nothing there to justify Denson's claims the Church knew he was a predator before her arrival at the MTC.

I am not saying this is what happened, just wouldn't be surprised if he did confess as he claims, if he played it like that.  Wouldn't be the first person to do so or the last.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The lawyer knew about the interview before quitting according to Denson, so I doubt he sees it the same way.  It all depends on Bishop and Well's depositions.  He may have specified what he actually told or said he didn't remember details, but Wells  did.  If the confession amounted to Bishop claiming Denson was the instigator and all he did was accept the offer or nothing previous to the MTC having been more than momentary inappropriate feelings in awkward situations (which is how he described the 'hot tub' and Florida incidents), there is nothing there to justify Denson's claims the Church knew he was a predator before her arrival at the MTC.

I am not saying this is what happened, just wouldn't be surprised if he did confess as he claims, if he played it like that.  Wouldn't be the first person to do so or the last.

 The correlation in both the interview with the police and his interview with Denson, is significant to me. And I thought her attorney Craig Vernon didn't have access to the full interview until recently or after leaving McKenna's case.

But I'm sure there are many, many LDS men in leadership positions that don't have a perfect past but are forgiven through repentance. The church has a history of going that route vs. jail time etc. which could lead to enabling the offender to commit offences again, w/o having any punishment such as being put on the sex offender list or not having any arrests that should have occurred, which would hopefully prevent them from serving in certain callings.

Of course that didn't affect the case with Jan Broberg's abuser, Robert Berchtold who later served in the temple and had a calling in the bishopric, that I've posted about in another thread a while back. And that case is extremely alarming for the horrible actions he made, which was shocking beyond belief to see that he went on to serve in the temple, etc. And he didn't repent fully since during that time he went to a presentation Jan was speaking at, a women's conference in St. George, with a gun and running over someone with his vehicle when the bikers against child abuse wouldn't let him in, this while serving in the temple? No discernment there, with being allowed a recommend and not seeing that the man hadn't changed.

In another case Craig Vernon has taken is Kristy Johnson. I recently attended the documentary about it. The church tried to keep this quiet as well, IMO. https://kutv.com/news/local/woman-sues-father-former-lds-church-employee-for-alleged-sexual-abuse ETA: I like what Kristy says in the KUTV report in the video, when she said, "Take the burden off of the LDS leaders, by taking the case directly to the police". The documentary mentioned in this KUTV report isn't the one I went to. I went to the most recent one with them interviewing her father, which I don't think is in the previous one. I saw it mentioned on a daytime news show and dragged my husband with me. It is called "No Crime in Sin".

Edited June 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I thought her attorney Craig Vernon didn't have access to the full interview until recently or after leaving McKenna's case.

If Denson did as she claims, he did.

Vernon was not part of the group suing for access.  There would definitely have been legal issues involved and addressed by the court if such a relevant piece of evidence was redacted so significantly or not released per discovery rules.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

After listening to Bishop and the BYU police in the full tape, I think her old attorney should get back in the arena. I believe there is something out there that the church didn't do enough to prohibit Bishop from being in authoritative positions that would enable more abuse.

I take it that you do not think her former attorneys heard the tape? Denson has suggested more than once that she had heard the tape.

Problems she faces are not disclosing that she posted on reddit under two user names - her first admitted user name is from over a year ago. And misrepresenting her "book" along with various other things.

I am of the opinion that her former attorneys knew and had a copy.

Edited June 25, 2019 by provoman

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, provoman said:

I take it that you do not think her former attorneys heard the tape? Denson has suggested more than once that she had heard the tape.

Problems she faces are not disclosing that she posted on reddit under two user names - her first admitted user name is from over a year ago. And misrepresenting her "book" along with various other things.

I am of the opinion that her former attorneys knew and had a copy.

 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Denson did as she claims, he did.

Vernon was not part of the group suing for access.  There would definitely have been legal issues involved and addressed by the court if such a relevant piece of evidence was redacted so significantly or not released per discovery rules.

I was under the impression that only parts of the tape was heard until very recently when the courts decided that the police had to hand over requests for the full tape finally. IOW's they had to follow the same law that other officers out there have to follow, they weren't separate and distinct just because they worked for BYU or something. 

ETA: In the article in the trib and in the OP,  here is the 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.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I was under the impression that only parts of the tape was heard until very recently when the courts decided that the police had to hand over requests for the full tape finally. IOW's they had to follow the same law that other officers out there have to follow, they weren't separate and distinct just because they worked for BYU or something. 

ETA: In the article in the trib and in the OP,  here is the 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.

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.