AP Story about Abuse

[webbles]

2 hours ago, helix said:

It's worse than shoddy.  The AP journalist Rezendes is not just incorrect or misleading in some cases.  He is either grossly negligent or straight up lying.  For example, after the church responded and said the work was flawed, he had an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune where he said this:

But Leizza testified of the exact opposite:

This is just one of many examples where Rezendes either stated something that's flat out contradicted by the court record, or stated something where he ignores evidences that goes against his narrative and instead latches onto weak hints that he can make go his way.  He seems to have largely adopted the story from the attorney helping to sue everyone involved on the church's side.  This attorney also made the same fundamental lie regarding shredding documents.   (And the attorney could have asked Warr this when she was examining Warr, but chose not to...)

I know sometimes media is biased.  But I've been surprised and shocked at how badly Rezendes has deliberately twisted or hidden the truth.

 

I don't think Leizza is the best source of truth.  She's really unreliable.  The AP reporter does say that he interviewed the children and they talked about it.  We know that Warr was there for some of the time.  So, Warr could have been telling Leizza to stop or she could have been helping.  I'm really confused, though, on why and when Leizza was shredding documents to begin with.  It is all after her husband was arrested so at that point, I'm not sure shredding would help with anything.  She didn't shred her journals, which is where they found out that she actually knew of the abuse.

[Rivers]

I apologize if this had been posted already:

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/ten-ways-ap-abuse-misrepresented-evidence/

[helix]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think Leizza is the best source of truth.  She's really unreliable.  The AP reporter does say that he interviewed the children and they talked about it.

The issue is that the AP journalist is stating something that he has zero evidence to support, and we have evidence to the contrary.  We have:
1) Leizza talking about shredding documents at one point in the trial but never mentioning that Warr helped shred.
2) Leizza stating in a different time in court that Warr told her not to shred documents, but Leizza knowingly ignored Warr and shredded anyway. 
3) Warr discussing in court all the assistance she tried to provide Leizza and the times she tried to pry any hint of abuse from anyone in the family.  The attorney suing her had an opportunity to question her about shredding.  The attorney stated in the lawsuit that Warr assisted in shredding documents, but the attorney provided no evidence to this.  Here now was a prime opportunity to ask Warr about assisted document shredding as stated in the lawsuit, and the attorney avoided the topic entirely.

How the journalist can take those three things, and then state Warr assisted in shredding, is beyond me.

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[Calm]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think Leizza is the best source of truth.  She's really unreliable.  The AP reporter does say that he interviewed the children and they talked about it.  We know that Warr was there for some of the time.  So, Warr could have been telling Leizza to stop or she could have been helping.  I'm really confused, though, on why and when Leizza was shredding documents to begin with.  It is all after her husband was arrested so at that point, I'm not sure shredding would help with anything.  She didn't shred her journals, which is where they found out that she actually knew of the abuse.

Perhaps her husband had told her to do it if he was arrested and she was still obeying him.  
 

Also at times she was still in denial from what was reported. Maybe she didn’t want more details to come out. Other times she may have been trying to inflate the abuse she herself suffered (which amounted from what she said during the free talk—which was the first time she mentioned any abuse—to him yelling at her and frightening her by throwing things against the wall iirc) in order to be seen as more a victim than an accomplice/enabler.

Unless there was a way to find out what was shredded, hard to know why. Could just be the twisted way she thinks or maybe it was just her trying to simplify her life in anticipation of moving or moving on or even just trying to erase anything that made her or anyone else think of Paul.  

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[helix]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could just be the twisted way she thinks

Numerous folks involved mentioned that something isn't quite right with her.  Such as Aspergers or autism or battered wife syndrome or some combination.  She married a sociopath who almost certainly preyed upon her inability to reason or stand up for herself.  The lawyer defending Leizza in court at her sentencing tried to use all this as an argument why Leizza shouldn't get jail time.  Herrod also stated in one of his interviews that he feels Leizza shouldn't be punished either for similar reasons. 

Paul used fear and mental issues to keep a near iron grip on his family.  Nobody else in the Brisbee Ward knew about the sex abuse except Bishop Herrod and then later Bishop Mauzy.  Not even the ward clerk who was involved in the excommunication knew about it.  Everyone knew Paul was crazy and Leizza was terribly submissive, but the sex abuse was a different story.

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I apologize if this had been posted already:

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/ten-ways-ap-abuse-misrepresented-evidence/

Thank you. I missed that one. Definitely this is a story of abuse of media privilege. Worse, I think it hurts society's efforts to combat abuse.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Such as Aspergers or autism or battered wife syndrome or some combination. 

My guess is a combination. There is, iirc, a claim she was sexually abused as a child as well as several who said her behaviors even earlier in her life mirror others they know who are autistic.  Add to that abuse over time from Paul.  She doesn’t seem to be able to see her children as individuals with their needs and to put them first. When visiting with the kids, she would cuddle with them whether they wanted to or not and then more or less ignore them (play time was not in the play area at the mall the supervised visits were in, but going into a store where mom looked around while kids picked up store stuff and put it back if I understood one discussion correctly); when the agents first came, she never asked to see or even about her children during her interview.

I should add that when I say “twisted”, I am not referring to the possible autism, but the inappropriate mothering…cuddling or not without caring about her child’s reaction, not asking about her children at all when separated from them in traumatic situations, thinking forcing them to drink vinegar to throw up is appropriate punishment, telling her daughter she was talking nonsense when her daughter said she was raped even after her husband’s confession he had raped her, having her daughter sleep in the same room as her husband so the daughter wouldn’t wake up the other kids when getting up early for school stuff even though she had a supposed rule to never to leave her daughter alone with her husband and knew he was watching porn, etc in that room…it seems her care is all about making her own life easier and doing what she wants.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

I apologize if this had been posted already:

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/ten-ways-ap-abuse-misrepresented-evidence/

 

Just started listening to the AP reporter's response, not sure what he'll say.

https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowest/2022-08-18/reporter-michael-rezendes-shines-spotlight-on-the-lds-church

ETA: He mentions a recording, that makes him think the bishop was aware of ongoing abuse.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

https://safepath.org/what-to-do-if-you-suspect-child-abuse/#:~:text=If a child is in,or local child protective services.

Churches are tax exempt and given special considerations, enough is enough and churches should do like the rest of us and report. Sure they can still have confessionals and part of the repentance process is to live with the consequences and then never do the particular sin again and hopefully change through that penance.

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://safepath.org/what-to-do-if-you-suspect-child-abuse/#:~:text=If a child is in,or local child protective services.

Churches are tax exempt and given special considerations, enough is enough and churches should do like the rest of us and report. Sure they can still have confessionals and part of the repentance process is to live with the consequences and then never do the particular sin again and hopefully change through that penance.

 

The tax exemption has nothing to do with confessional privilege. Doctors, therapists, lawyers all have similar confessional confidentiality privileges in most places and they pay taxes. 

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://safepath.org/what-to-do-if-you-suspect-child-abuse/#:~:text=If a child is in,or local child protective services.

Churches are tax exempt and given special considerations, enough is enough and churches should do like the rest of us and report. Sure they can still have confessionals and part of the repentance process is to live with the consequences and then never do the particular sin again and hopefully change through that penance.

 

This is the second time you've brought up tax exempt in talking about child abuse and the church.  I don't understand how they are linked.

Attorneys, doctors, physicians, etc also have the same "special considerations" (depending on the state).  Even husbands and wives have similar "special considerations".  Clergy really aren't that much more special than other classes of people.

There have been studies that show that people who do bad things need places where they can talk without judgment if we want them to stop doing the bad things.  By removing all of those "safe places", they'll continue to do bad things and harm even more people.

Take this specific case.  An abuser came to the bishop and confessed to one instance of child abuse.  The bishop tried to get him to go to the police.  The bishop tried to get the mother to go to the police.  The bishop worked with the mother to ensure it would never happen again.  The fact that it did occur again doesn't mean the bishop didn't try.  He worked to protect the family.  If the abuser knew that the bishop was required to tell the police, he probably never would have talked to the bishop.  He might have stayed a member of the church and been given access to other primary children.  His abuse could have affected even more people.

You might think that these are a lot of "what ifs" but there are about as many "what ifs" on the side of the bishop reporting.  Say the bishop did tell the police.  They go to talk to the man.  He denies it.  The wife denies it.  The girl denies it.  The later two because they are afraid of the abuser.  Nothing happens.  Without any other evidence of abuse, the police would not be able to do anything.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is the second time you've brought up tax exempt in talking about child abuse and the church.  I don't understand how they are linked.

Attorneys, doctors, physicians, etc also have the same "special considerations" (depending on the state).  Even husbands and wives have similar "special considerations".  Clergy really aren't that much more special than other classes of people.

There have been studies that show that people who do bad things need places where they can talk without judgment if we want them to stop doing the bad things.  By removing all of those "safe places", they'll continue to do bad things and harm even more people.

Take this specific case.  An abuser came to the bishop and confessed to one instance of child abuse.  The bishop tried to get him to go to the police.  The bishop tried to get the mother to go to the police.  The bishop worked with the mother to ensure it would never happen again.  The fact that it did occur again doesn't mean the bishop didn't try.  He worked to protect the family.  If the abuser knew that the bishop was required to tell the police, he probably never would have talked to the bishop.  He might have stayed a member of the church and been given access to other primary children.  His abuse could have affected even more people.

You might think that these are a lot of "what ifs" but there are about as many "what ifs" on the side of the bishop reporting.  Say the bishop did tell the police.  They go to talk to the man.  He denies it.  The wife denies it.  The girl denies it.  The later two because they are afraid of the abuser.  Nothing happens.  Without any other evidence of abuse, the police would not be able to do anything.

I don't recall doing it another time, please share if possible when I did that. I wouldn't put it past me though, but wondering when I did. 

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't recall doing it another time, please share if possible when I did that. I wouldn't put it past me though, but wondering when I did. 

You talked about it earlier in this thread.  I guess technically you were talking about how churches are liable as long as they are tax-exempt so maybe you don't see the two as the same thing.  But it was also an odd connection to me since tax-exempt really has nothing to do with either of the situations.

 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

You talked about it earlier in this thread.  I guess technically you were talking about how churches are liable as long as they are tax-exempt so maybe you don't see the two as the same thing.  But it was also an odd connection to me since tax-exempt really has nothing to do with either of the situations.

 

This isn't me. Or am I mistaken what this c/p is?

Also, someone gave an analogy of what if the church was told there is a bomb at the church building? Would they report that? And found this article: https://religionnews.com/2014/08/01/perpetrators-confess-clergy-three-mistaken-beliefs/

Perhaps the most confusing issue for most pastors related to reporting child sexual abuse is what to do when a perpetrator is the one who discloses the abuse. If a perpetrator confesses to sexually abusing a child to a pastor, every effort should be made by the pastor to insure that the offender immediately reports his/her crime to the authorities. This should certainly be the expectation if the perpetrator has expressed a desire to demonstrate repentance. Expressing repentance for a crime without voluntarily submitting to the civil authorities is manipulation, not repentance. The dark reality is that most offenders who confess abuse to a pastor won’t report themselves to the authorities. In those circumstances, the pastor has a fundamental decision to make; remain silent and protect a perpetrator, or report the abuse and protect a vulnerable child.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Tacenda

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

Just started listening to the AP reporter's response, not sure what he'll say.

https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowest/2022-08-18/reporter-michael-rezendes-shines-spotlight-on-the-lds-church

ETA: He mentions a recording, that makes him think the bishop was aware of ongoing abuse.

You should tell these people to please post a transcript

It seems like it as around the 21 minute mark, he says that the abuse is "ongoing".  He references the recording between Herrod and the federal agents.  I've actually attached the transcript of that interview to one of these threads.  You can read it at https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74710-ap-story-about-abuse/?do=findComment&comment=1210110969.  The reporter is misreading it.  He is almost willfully misreading it.  The bishop is talking about multiple meetings with the mother to ensure that the abuse isn't continuing.  He only heard of it one time and wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again.

I would strongly recommend you read the transcript yourself.  Tell me whether you think the bishop knew of multiple instances or just one instance.  I'm curious what your opinion is.

 

[Calm]

Tacenda, if you go to the link you will find it is your post. You are responding to bluebell in it, but that quote is not shown, instead as a header or intro or something, it is the opening post of this thread (probably to give an idea of where a post is located).  
 

The board sometimes shows the opening posts when setting up that type of link.  other times it seems like it has been just the post itself, but perhaps I am remembering older versions before updates.
 

This is what you said:

“I guess if churches are going to remain tax exempt they will have to pay out to those suing if they have just cause. Now if the church discontinues that exemption and also, discontinue priest penitent exclusions, then I don't see how a member can sue the church over their child being abused unless it's a clergy member or any other thing connected to the church causing injury. 

ETA: If what I said up above is kind of hogwash, disregard….”

Edited August 24, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This isn't me. Or am I mistaken what this c/p is?

I linked to your comment.  It is definitely you.

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, someone gave an analogy of what if the church was told there is a bomb at the church house? Would they report that?

So, a person comes to have an interview with the bishop and says there is a bomb at the church house?  That would mean that the bishop is now in danger, correct?  So, he is now a victim and he has every right to report as it isn't a confession anymore, it is a threat.

Probably another analogy would be, what if the confessor left a bomb at home and then came to the bishop to confess to the soon-to-be murdering of his family.  Would the bishop report?  Well, per the statement from the church, yes.  Because it is an immediate danger.  We could change the analogy to, what if the confessor told the bishop that he was abusing his daughter every day and plans to keep doing it.  Would the bishop report?  The answer is yes to that as well.  The church, in its statement, said that a confession that includes immediate or grave danger will be reported.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, if you go to the link you will find it is your post. You are responding to bluebell in it, but that quote is not shown, instead as a header or intro or something, it is the opening post of this thread (probably to give an idea of where a post is located).  
 

The board sometimes shows the opening posts when setting up that type of link.  other times it seems like it has been just the post itself, but perhaps I am remembering older versions before updates.
 

This is what you said:

“I guess if churches are going to remain tax exempt they will have to pay out to those suing if they have just cause. Now if the church discontinues that exemption and also, discontinue priest penitent exclusions, then I don't see how a member can sue the church over their child being abused unless it's a clergy member or any other thing connected to the church causing injury. 

ETA: If what I said up above is kind of hogwash, disregard….”

 

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

I linked to your comment.  It is definitely you.

So, a person comes to have an interview with the bishop and says there is a bomb at the church house?  That would mean that the bishop is now in danger, correct?  So, he is now a victim and he has every right to report as it isn't a confession anymore, it is a threat.

Probably another analogy would be, what if the confessor left a bomb at home and then came to the bishop to confess to the soon-to-be murdering of his family.  Would the bishop report?  Well, per the statement from the church, yes.  Because it is an immediate danger.  We could change the analogy to, what if the confessor told the bishop that he was abusing his daughter every day and plans to keep doing it.  Would the bishop report?  The answer is yes to that as well.  The church, in its statement, said that a confession that includes immediate or grave danger will be reported.

I am legit now concerned about my memory, haha. 

I'm probably close to using up my posts, so if I don't comment back for a while that's why. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

I linked to your comment.  It is definitely you.

So, a person comes to have an interview with the bishop and says there is a bomb at the church house?  That would mean that the bishop is now in danger, correct?  So, he is now a victim and he has every right to report as it isn't a confession anymore, it is a threat.

Probably another analogy would be, what if the confessor left a bomb at home and then came to the bishop to confess to the soon-to-be murdering of his family.  Would the bishop report?  Well, per the statement from the church, yes.  Because it is an immediate danger.  We could change the analogy to, what if the confessor told the bishop that he was abusing his daughter every day and plans to keep doing it.  Would the bishop report?  The answer is yes to that as well.  The church, in its statement, said that a confession that includes immediate or grave danger will be reported.

Just to be clear the above is the case except when prohibited by law (confession seal belongs to the confessor). 

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just to be clear the above is the case except when prohibited by law (confession seal belongs to the confessor). 

I went off of what I remembered the newsroom to say - https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case

Re-reading it, I guess it only talked about instances of child abuse.  So my last example is true, I think:

Quote

Directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger. The help line routinely reports cases of child abuse to authorities. Outside experts who are aware of the Helpline have regularly praised it.

If an abuser confessed to ongoing abuse of a child, it would be reported to police.  I take the "legal exemptions" to mean the clergy-penitent privilege.

The other situation (bomb at his home) isn't covered by that but I would strongly suspect that if a bishop called the helpline for help, he would be told to report.  But I don't have any thing I can point to.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I am legit now concerned about my memory, haha. 

I'm probably close to using up my posts, so if I don't comment back for a while that's why. 

I have forgotten I posted stuff. Life is crowded and a passing thought may be exactly that, passing and never to be seen again. 

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

I am legit now concerned about my memory, haha. 

I'm probably close to using up my posts, so if I don't comment back for a while that's why. 

Wish I could upvote some of your comments.  No problem.  I remembered it because the connection of tax-exemption and this topic is strange to me so it stuck in my head.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

I went off of what I remembered the newsroom to say - https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case

Re-reading it, I guess it only talked about instances of child abuse.  So my last example is true, I think:

If an abuser confessed to ongoing abuse of a child, it would be reported to police.  I take the "legal exemptions" to mean the clergy-penitent privilege.

The other situation (bomb at his home) isn't covered by that but I would strongly suspect that if a bishop called the helpline for help, he would be told to report.  But I don't have any thing I can point to.

You are misreading that (but reading as I believe the church intended - i.e. the chosen wording is intentionally misleading IMO). The part you quoted says if reporting is optional (as in Arizona) they will only report “known” imminent danger. 
 

The next paragraph addresses times when the law prohibits reporting:

 

“…even [when] prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.”

So if required by law, the church follows the law. If forbidden by law, they follow the law. If given the option, they report only “known” dangers. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are misreading that (but reading as I believe the church intended - i.e. the chosen wording is intentionally misleading IMO). The part you quoted says if reporting is optional (as in Arizona) they will only report “known” imminent danger. 
 

The next paragraph addresses times when the law prohibits reporting:

 

“…even [when] prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.”

So if required by law, the church follows the law. If forbidden by law, they follow the law. If given the option, they report only “known” dangers. 

I don't know, it says "the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met."  Those three goals are the points just above it and one of them is what I quoted.  So, I think if the danger was "clear and present" I suspect that the bishops would be encouraged to report.  Re-reading the three goals, it is talking about what the helpline would do: "Its purpose is to directly report the abuse to authorities ...".  So the helpline wouldn't report but the bishop would be encouraged to.

But yes, the statement can unfortunately be read in different ways.  I don't think it is intentionally misleading IMO.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

I don't know, it says "the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met."  Those three goals are the points just above it and one of them is what I quoted.  So, I think if the danger was "clear and present" I suspect that the bishops would be encouraged to report.  Re-reading the three goals, it is talking about what the helpline would do: "Its purpose is to directly report the abuse to authorities ...".  So the helpline wouldn't report but the bishop would be encouraged to.

But yes, the statement can unfortunately be read in different ways.  I don't think it is intentionally misleading IMO.

Goal one is comply with the law. The part you quote talks about exemptions from mandatory reporting not prohibitions from reporting. You are seeing what you want to see. 
 

The church took days to write their response and I’m sure a team of Public affairs employees and attorneys went over each word with a fine toothed comb.