(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[Calm]

Quote

This is hearsay, so a grain of salt is appropriate.

 

Webbles is using Herrod’s own testimony, the transcript of the interview, not Edwards’ report of it.

Here is the link again:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=5923&key=b3947fe1d75278c7435135f9a1bbda61
 

numbers are off where I removed empty multiple lines between comments, but I also removed comments that I see as not specific to the issue of Herrod’s knowledge of how many acts of abuse, one act spoken of multiple times or multiple acts.  Best to actually read it though as you may see it differently.
 

Quote

EDWARDS: Um, so as, as you know, Paul Adams had some issues come up-um, and we were

5 able to, uh, arrest Paul and eventually put him, put him in custody for, for the acts that he did.
Um, now Leizza Adams, uh, and I'm, I'm a federal agent and I know the state is going after Leizza
6
7 belief that Paul was doing anything like this? Did you have any signs? Was there anything weird
Adams, but I just wanted to get the record straight with Leizza. Um, was there, did you have any
that stood out to you maybe while he was in congregation? In church?
8
9 HERROD: Uh..
10
EDWARDS: Okay.
HERROD: No, there's nothing. I mean, yeah, people would say ah, he's kind of weird. I wonder
what he's doing, but there's no accusations or anything else.
EDWARDS: Okay.
HERROD: That were out and about.
EDWARDS: Okay. Um, so, so nobody ever, you know, none of the other, uh, individuals in the church came and said that they had seen something-
HERROD: No, no.
EDWARDS: -the kids never confided in you?
HERROD: No.
EDWARDS: or any of the Sunday school teachers or anything like that, that you were aware of?
4
EDWARDS: Anything anybody spoke to you about?
HERROD: Other than what may have passed between him and I confidentially as Bishop.
HERROD: No.

 

Quote

 EDWARDS: Okay. Ah- do, do you recall how many times that happened? I mean, just ballpark. 8
9 10
11 HERROD: No.
28
HERROD: And, so, you know, probably that one time and, and then, uh, discussed the situation, what you're doing and, uh, where we're going with it.
EDWARDS: You think Paul told her? HERROD: Yeah I made him tell her. EDWARDS: You made him tell her? HERROD: Yeah.
HERROD: No.
EDWARDS: We're talking thousands?
12
13
14
15 EDWARDS: Sure, sure. 16
EDWARDS: Five? Handful?
HERROD: Yeah. I mean, once, once he said it, there's no sense in doing it again.
EDWARDS: Okay.
HERROD: And then I was released and-
EDWARDS: Okay.
HERROD: And so, like I said, it seems like, you know, it was, it was right before I was released because I brought him to the new Bishop and said, I hate to dump this on you but

 

Quote

If I remember right, we discussed probably what went on the one time.
EDWARDS: Okay. Okay.
HERROD: And then from then on, it would have been, okay, what are we doing to stop it? Is it still going on? And uh yet he's never home alone with the kids…

I get why Edwards got the impression Herrod was told more than once that abuse was happening as Edwards is asking about number of times, but Herrod says they talked multiple times about the one time abuse occurred (according to the confession).

Best to read the whole transcript.  It is a causal conversation and I am not impressed by Edwards nailing down the details.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is hearsay, so a grain of salt is appropriate.  But "Adams admitted ... that he had been sexually assaulting his oldest daughter" doesn't seem compatible with the Church's characterization (likely from Herrod) that Herrod received from Adams "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child."

Herrod also believed the abuse stopped.  See the interview (that both Calm and I have now linked to) in the other thread.  But here's the section about his belief on it stopping:

Quote

EDWARDS: And that was the action she was going to take?
HERROD: And apparently she was because, uh, uh, you know, as we talked, she said, you know, he's never home with them and I'm always there when he's there. And okay. And so, uh, you know, at least for that period of time, I assumed that she had stopped things, but-
EDWARDS: okay.
HERROD: And then I never asked if they picked up again, I assume they did from-

 

[Calm]

I don’t think Edwards’ interview was poor for an introductory one where he gets the overall picture of what Herrod knows and if it’s of value to have a more in-depth interview. However, if that is all there was of Herrod being interviewed by law enforcement before Leizza Adams’ hearings, I find that problematic as I don’t think Herrod was very clear and more precision should have been used by Edwards unless he actually believed another interview would take place for certain and he just didn’t want to alienate or shut down Herrod by pushing too hard (I assume that is why Edwards allowed Herrod to wander a bit and not specify actual numbers, etc.).

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think Edwards’ interview was poor for an introductory one where he gets the overall picture of what Herrod knows and if it’s of value to have a more in-depth interview. However, if that is all there was of Herrod being interviewed by law enforcement before Leizza Adams’ hearings, I find that problematic as I don’t think Herrod was very clear and more precision should have been used by Edwards unless he actually believed another interview would take place for certain and he just didn’t want to alienate or shut down Herrod by pushing too hard (I assume that is why Edwards allowed Herrod to wander a bit and not specify actual numbers, etc.).

The interview with Herrod wasn't actually to prove/disprove anything about what Herrod knew.  The interview was June 12, 2018.  The abuser had already been arrested and committed suicide.  Leizza's case was on June 7, 2018 (transcript).  In the transcript, Shaunice Warr (the visiting teacher) brings up the fact that the abuser had gone to the bishop who had brought in Leizza.  I think that is the first time that people learned that the bishop had knowledge.  Because of that, the Agent Edwards went to visit him.  So, Agent Edwards was looking for details on how much Leizza knew, not how much Herrod knew.

[webbles]

Looks like mormonr.org has John Herrod's declaration (link).  In it, he talks about what he knew and also about the interview with Agent Edwards.

Some quotes from it:

Quote

14. I never observed Paul Adams abusing or behaving inappropriately in any way toward his children, nor did I see any physical indications or visible signs that he was
abusing them.
15. What Paul Adams confessed to me was a one-time incident that had not reoccurred. I did not learn that Paul had abused his children after his confidential confession to me, or about the extensiveness of the abuse and other illegal conduct, until Paul was arrested in 2017 and news reports concerning the extent of the abuse were released.

Quote

23. In addition to acknowledging to Agent Edwards what I had learned through confidential communications with Paul Adams, I also repeated information regarding what I first learned after he was arrested in February 2017. For example, I knew nothing about Paul Adams accessing child pornography or videotaping some of his children until it was reported after his arrest.

He also talks about an allegation from a Relief Society member.  He gives no details but, from context, it seem like the sister alleged that people in the ward knew of the abuse.  Oddly enough, he states that he has no recollection that she was ever in the ward.  Considering that he testifies that the Relief Society had 20-30 sisters, I would expect a bishop to be able to recollect all of those sisters.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

The interview with Herrod wasn't actually to prove/disprove anything about what Herrod knew.  The interview was June 12, 2018.  The abuser had already been arrested and committed suicide.  Leizza's case was on June 7, 2018 (transcript).  In the transcript, Shaunice Warr (the visiting teacher) brings up the fact that the abuser had gone to the bishop who had brought in Leizza.  I think that is the first time that people learned that the bishop had knowledge.  Because of that, the Agent Edwards went to visit him.  So, Agent Edwards was looking for details on how much Leizza knew, not how much Herrod knew.

Yes, but as part of that, I would assume he would try and find out who told Herrod what so that Edwards could learn what Leizza knew as far as Herrod was aware. As I am reading the interview, Edwards is telling first why he needs to know (they are proceeding against Leizza), but then it gets mixed up as the discussion focuses on what Paul Adams confessed, though attempts are made to center everything around Leizza’s involvement.  But that may just be my own awareness of what happens next and what questions I still have about both Paul and Leizza’s actions influencing how I am reading it. 
 

Quote

For example, I knew nothing about Paul Adams accessing child pornography or videotaping some of his children until it was reported after his arrest.

I read the Edwards’ interview as tangling up what Herrod knew as a bishop to what Herrod knew at the time he was talking to Edwards. I need to reread it to pull out the confusing sections.  His declaration is, of course, more precise and intelligible.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

He also talks about an allegation from a Relief Society member.  He gives no details but, from context, it seem like the sister alleged that people in the ward knew of the abuse.  Oddly enough, he states that he has no recollection that she was ever in the ward.  Considering that he testifies that the Relief Society had 20-30 sisters, I would expect a bishop to be able to recollect all of those sisters.

I was searching for maybe some details on this Relief Society member (Emily Reynolds).  I found that she did give a deposition but I only have a soundbite (got it from a youtube video).  The soundbite is:

Quote

Cadigan: "Do you have any regrets about not calling the police on Paul Adams?"

Reynolds: "Absolutely, because things could have gone better a lot earlier."

That made me wonder about whether Reynolds just admitted to a crime.  The AZ statute says "any person" is required to report.  And Reynolds didn't report.  But then I re-read the statute - https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm.  It does say "any person" but it then defines what "person" means.

Quote

For the purposes of this subsection, "person" means:

1. Any physician, physician's assistant, optometrist, dentist, osteopathic physician, chiropractor, podiatrist, behavioral health professional, nurse, psychologist, counselor or social worker who develops the reasonable belief in the course of treating a patient.

2. Any peace officer, child welfare investigator, child safety worker, member of the clergy, priest or Christian Science practitioner.

3. The parent, stepparent or guardian of the minor.

4. School personnel, domestic violence victim advocates or sexual assault victim advocates who develop the reasonable belief in the course of their employment.

5. Any other person who has responsibility for the care or treatment of the minor.

6. Any person who is employed as the immediate or next higher level supervisor to or administrator of a person who is listed in paragraph 1, 2, 4 or 5 of this subsection and who develops the reasonable belief in the course of the supervisor's or administrator's employment, except that if the supervisor or administrator reasonably believes that the report has been made by a person who is required to report pursuant to paragraph 1, 2, 4 or 5 of this subsection, the supervisor or administrator is not required to report pursuant to this paragraph.

So, "any person" doesn't actually mean "any person"

[webbles]

And found the declaration from Kim Mauzy.

Sections about the excommunication:

Quote

11. The council was based on certain confidential information I received in my role as Bishop regarding Paul Adams. To a very limited extent, I involved Leizza Adams in that Church disciplinary proceeding and had confidential communications with her in my role as Bishop. I considered any and all information disclosed to me by Paul Adams and Leizza Adams regarding the reasons for such discipline to have been shared with me in my role as Church clergy and to be confidential within the dictates of my religion.

12. As a result of that confidential disciplinary proceeding, I made the decision to excommunicate Paul Adams from the Church.

Quote

17. I did not know that Paul Adams was abusing his children while I was Bishop until he was arrested in 2017. The communications with me were about a past one-time incident (and other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication). I did not know until Paul Adams was arrested in 2017 that he had abused Plaintiffs John Doe or Jane Doe II. I did not know until he was arrested that he had viewed or disseminated child pornography, including videos of his own children.

I believe back then (2013) that a bishop could not excommunicate a Melchizedek priesthood holder.  So, if the bishop is the one that made the decision, that would mean that Paul Adams was not an Elder.

[Calm]

The YouTube you linked to has testimony of Leizza Adams. I don’t see why anyone would actually use her testimony if interested in the truth given what we know of her telling people what she thinks they want to hear and changing her story all the time. She is, I believe, a victim too, but part of the reason all this happened is she lied to people all along as far as we can tell (it makes more sense to me that she lied than that several others lied in conspiracy).  And even after the dad’s arrested and the abuse is public, she is telling the daughter that it is nonsense she was raped. And after a year of parenting classes, she still thinks it is appropriate to feed a kid vinegar until they throw up as discipline.  She doesn’t think in straight ways, imo.

Warr, iirc, talks about how when she was trying to persuade Leizza to leave that anyone in the ward was also willing to take them in and how she herself had told Leizza she was willing to stand over her with a gun while Leizza got her things to take off. (I read this months ago, so may be mixed up).  But that general willingness doesn’t mean they knew of or even suspected sexual abuse. It sounds to me that everyone knew he was violent, an adulterer (this was public knowledge due to discipline at his work iirc) and guessed without direct evidence, but from the way Leizza behaved (like a zombie) and how the kids refused to talk about their father that he was beating them (they wore long sleeves all the time).

 I think it is much easier to imagine that someone is being physically and/or verbally abused than it is to make the jump to sexual abuse without physical evidence unless there is odd sexual behaviour by the child or an adult.  I think people can imagine losing their temper to the point of yelling at or even hitting someone, even a kid (though hopefully not hard); sexually abusing someone is not something most of us can picture ourselves doing, I hope.  I remember seeing my dad sort of my sister out of frustration once (he hit her on the thigh with a brush as he missed her butt, she was nine), but not the least bit violent at any other time outside of us apparently being spanked on occasion when really young (I don’t remember it, we just talked about it).  I slapped my almost two year old son’s hand when he was about to put a wet finger into a socket. I think it was the yell that went with it that bothered him more. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

The YouTube you linked to has testimony of Leizza Adams. I don’t see why anyone would actually use her testimony if interested in the truth given what we know of her telling people what she thinks they want to hear and changing her story all the time. She is, I believe, a victim too, but part of the reason all this happened is she lied to people all along as far as we can tell (it makes more sense to me that she lied than that several others lied in conspiracy).  And even after the dad’s arrested and the abuse is public, she is telling the daughter that it is nonsense she was raped. And after a year of parenting classes, she still thinks it is appropriate to feed a kid vinegar until they throw up as discipline.  She doesn’t think in straight ways, imo.

Warr, iirc, talks about how when she was trying to persuade Leizza to leave that anyone in the ward was also willing to take them in and how she herself had told Leizza she was willing to stand over her with a gun while Leizza got her things to take off. (I read this months ago, so may be mixed up).  But that general willingness doesn’t mean they knew of or even suspected sexual abuse. It sounds to me that everyone knew he was violent, an adulterer (this was public knowledge due to discipline at his work iirc) and guessed without direct evidence, but from the way Leizza behaved (like a zombie) and how the kids refused to talk about their father that he was beating them (they wore long sleeves all the time).

 I think it is much easier to imagine that someone is being physically and/or verbally abused than it is to make the jump to sexual abuse without physical evidence unless there is odd sexual behaviour by the child or an adult.  I think people can imagine losing their temper to the point of yelling at or even hitting someone, even a kid (though hopefully not hard); sexually abusing someone is not something most of us can picture ourselves doing, I hope.  I remember seeing my dad sort of my sister out of frustration once (he hit her on the thigh with a brush as he missed her butt, she was nine), but not the least bit violent at any other time outside of us apparently being spanked on occasion when really young (I don’t remember it, we just talked about it).  I slapped my almost two year old son’s hand when he was about to put a wet finger into a socket. I think it was the yell that went with it that bothered him more. 

I don't think we can say bishops have discernment in the case of the two bishops sadly. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think we can say bishops have discernment in the case of the two bishops sadly. 

I am curious what you believe discernment would have allowed them to do without knowing of actual evidence. (Sincere question, I believe they made major mistakes, just don’t know how bad they were…follow up seems lacking, but they did excommunicate him, it all depends on how much they pushed the mother to tell and what was seen in the home as Warr made it sound like the mom made sure nothing odd was seen and she was the only one allowed inside, while Reynolds hints otherwise, though she says her own mind went to spanking).

What if their discernment was if they acted without evidence, Paul Adams would be able to be free long enough to kill his family?  Would you feel differently about it?

Warr, the church member who appears to have known the father best, said she was waiting for the day he went postal at work.  He was a violent man and yet the Border Patrol rehired him after being terminated for threatening his bosses.  Not a big leap from shooting up your work to shooting up your family.  It is obvious Warr was worried something like that would happen.  My guess is the bishop (Mauzy?) who assigned her to be Leizza’s VT did so knowing Warr would both defend herself and defend the family if she happened to be around when the dad was violent.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

was searching for maybe some details on this Relief Society member (Emily Reynolds). 

Does it actually say she is a RS member somewhere as opposed to her just learning in RS?

Quote

I understand that a woman named Emily Reynolds has given testimony
regarding what she purported to have learned from Relief Society members in the Bisbee Ward.
35. Ihave no recollection of Emily Reynolds attending the Bisbee Ward or Relief Society meetings or socials from approximately 2004 through 2016, when I left the Bisbee
Ward.

Reynolds could have been in the ward after he left or been in the stake or was a visitor.  Iirc, Adams was arrested in either September or November 2017.  If he left early 2016, that could be about a year and  half. My husband doesn’t know all the names of all RS sisters since he was released from being the membership clerk a few years.  We do have quite a few sisters though.  20-30 seems doable unless it is something you intentionally ignored, which I know some people like that…unless they are directly involved with a person, they don’t bother to retain the name or face.  Still a bit odd if they were there at the same time and she hadn’t been married recently or anything else to change her name.

Reynolds says in the clip that she thinks other people knew, not that she knew they knew.

From the YouTube clip:  “Someone has to pay the price of the enormous damage done….”

Always makes me nervous when the emphasis is on ensuring someone pays rather than finding out the truth.

Added:  the clip has Reynolds saying Adams’ visiting teachers told her about stuff in the home and stuff done to the daughter.  Her first impression was they were talking about spanking.

Why were they telling her?  I would assume she was a member of the RS Presidency, otherwise very inappropriate.

I do not know why the daughter believes her mother about the bishop telling her not to tell rather than the reverse given the mother is telling her she wasn’t raped.  Why in the world would the bishop protect the father?

Weird case all the way around.  Would not want to be the judge ever.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I believe back then (2013) that a bishop could not excommunicate a Melchizedek priesthood holder.  So, if the bishop is the one that made the decision, that would mean that Paul Adams was not an Elder.

That was my understanding. I was even going to comment on it until I saw that you mentioned it.  

I had a look at the old handbook. 6.2.1 said that bishops normally administer discipline unless a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is likely to be excommunicated. Which would match our recollection. (Current policy is stake membership council must be held if an endowed member is likely to have their membership withdrawn, and high council do not normally participate).

So if it was the Bishop that excommunicated him, that means it was a ward rather than stake disciplinary council, which means that it would have been bishopric+clerk only, though with the stake president's approval to hold it (6.10.1.2 in the old handbook 1). It would also mean that the number of people present was greatly reduced (4-[bishopric+clerk] instead of 16-[Stake Presidency+12 High Priests+Clerk]).

Edited August 23, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am curious what you believe discernment would have allowed them to do without knowing of actual evidence. (Sincere question, I believe they made major mistakes, just don’t know how bad they were…follow up seems lacking, but they did excommunicate him, it all depends on how much they pushed the mother to tell and what was seen in the home as Warr made it sound like the mom made sure nothing odd was seen and she was the only one allowed inside, while Reynolds hints otherwise, though she says her own mind went to spanking).

What if their discernment was if they acted without evidence, Paul Adams would be able to be free long enough to kill his family?  Would you feel differently about it?

Warr, the church member who appears to have known the father best, said she was waiting for the day he went postal at work.  He was a violent man and yet the Border Patrol rehired him after being terminated for threatening his bosses.  Not a big leap from shooting up your work to shooting up your family.  It is obvious Warr was worried something like that would happen.  My guess is the bishop (Mauzy?) who assigned her to be Leizza’s VT did so knowing Warr would both defend herself and defend the family if she happened to be around when the dad was violent.

Well both, not just the one, knew of the instance of sexual abuse. Somewhere in this thread I swear someone said the 2nd bishop didn't know. I'd have to find it.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Does it actually say she is a RS member somewhere as opposed to her just learning in RS?

Reynolds could have been in the ward after he left or been in the stake or was a visitor.  Iirc, Adams was arrested in either September or November 2017.  If he left early 2016, that could be about a year and  half. My husband doesn’t know all the names of all RS sisters since he was released from being the membership clerk a few years.  We do have quite a few sisters though.  20-30 seems doable unless it is something you intentionally ignored, which I know some people like that…unless they are directly involved with a person, they don’t bother to retain the name or face.  Still a bit odd if they were there at the same time and she hadn’t been married recently or anything else to change her name.

Reynolds says in the clip that she thinks other people knew, not that she knew they knew.

From the YouTube clip:  “Someone has to pay the price of the enormous damage done….”

Always makes me nervous when the emphasis is on ensuring someone pays rather than finding out the truth.

Added:  the clip has Reynolds saying Adams’ visiting teachers told her about stuff in the home and stuff done to the daughter.  Her first impression was they were talking about spanking.

Why were they telling her?  I would assume she was a member of the RS Presidency, otherwise very inappropriate.

I do not know why the daughter believes her mother about the bishop telling her not to tell rather than the reverse given the mother is telling her she wasn’t raped.  Why in the world would the bishop protect the father?

Weird case all the way around.  Would not want to be the judge ever.

Here's what Herrod says:

Quote

34. I understand that a woman named Emily Reynolds has given testimony regarding what she purported to have learned from Relief Society members in the Bisbee Ward.

35. I have no recollection of Emily Reynolds attending the Bisbee Ward or Relief Society meetings or socials from approximately 2004 through 2016, when I left the Bisbee Ward.

Here's what Mauzy says:

Quote

31. I understand that Emily Reynolds has given testimony regarding what she purported to have learned from Relief Society members in the Bisbee Ward.

32. I do not personally known Emily Reynolds. I do not recall ever meeting her at any time that I was a member of the Bisbee Ward from 2012 through 2018, and do not recall her being involved in Church Services or Relief Society meetings during that time. Neither Emily Reynolds nor any other Relief Society member ever reported to me any information regarding Paul Adams' abuse of his children.

So neither of them actually say she was a Relief Society member.

I did find her deposition and I've attached it.  She was technically in a different ward (Elfrida Ward) but her mom, living in Bisbee, got sick and so for a part of the time she attended the Bisbee ward.  It looks like she attended the Bisbee ward from roughly 2008-2012.  She stopped attending because of a bad experience with Dr. Herrod.  She feels like she has been shunned since she stopped going.

She was baptized in her 50s, though she attended for years as a nonmember.  She was never in any presidency.  She was a visiting teacher in Bisbee but never visited the Adams.

Here's probably the clearest statement about what she knew:

Quote

Q. So, you say you knew about Paul Adams abusing his children in at least 2010, but you can't recall the name of any other person that might have known it?

A. I never heard the word "abuse"

Q. What did you hear?

A. I never heard that word.

Q. What did you hear?

A. I heard "misbehaving". That's the word that I was told, "misbehaving" with his children. And I thought it was spanking originally.

Q. All right

A. Come to find out, it was far worse than spanking.

Q. And when was it that you came to find out that it was far worse than spanking, when you read the article about Paul Adam's arrst in 2017?

A. No, sir.  There was nothing about spanking in the Observer.

Q. No, no.  I said -- you said it came to your attention later that what Paul Adams has done was --

A. Oh, during the same period. During the same period that I was attending the Bisbee Ward, that's when it -- the whispers became louder, and I realized the extent of the lubricant in all of the rooms, the plastic dools, sexual items left about.  That's when it became abundantly clear, ecxuse me, that something was going on far worse than spanking.

Q. And who did you hear this from? You told me you never visited the Adams home. So obviously somebody must have told you about the lubricants and other things that you're now talking about. Who was it that told you about this?

A. The visiting teachers go to the homes and visually observe what is happening in the home. The visiting teachers observed what was happening in the home and reported it, when they came back, to the president. The president reported it to the priesthood. The priesthood reported it to the bishop.

Quote

A. Every week, when you go to Relief Society, you get more of a story, who's sick, who's sicker, who got well. It's like a little reporting system. It's wonderful. And every week the stories got more dire.

Q. And when you say "the stories," you're talking about Paul Adams?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during any of these Relief Society discussions, dd anybody ever say that Paul Adams was sexually abusing his children?

A. I don't think any sister would say that, no.

A. What was reported is -- I don't know if I can say this. What was reported is the sexual items that were seen open in the house, and the dolls and the lubricant, and that was reported, and it just seemed to get worse and more unbelievable every week.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  I've never been to Relief Society but I don't think I've ever heard about Relief Society talking about sexual items found at other members houses.  I'm also confused on how this discussion is happening when Leizza Adams is there every week as well.  It feels a little unreal.

You might notice that she is basically saying every single woman in Relief Society knew enough to guess that sexual abuse was happening.  So why didn't any of them report it?  From the deposition:

Quote

Q. Why didn't you report any of your concerns to any of the authorities?

A. I was told, by the same lady, that it was reported, as is done after a visiting teacher visits, that they report what is the condition of the house, do they have groceries, does everybody have clothes, does everybody have concerns, how does their yard look, just a wide variety of their circumstances. And that was reported, obviously, to the bishop, that this was a concern, not of mine, but from a visiting teacher.

Q. So was it your -- so then but why wouldn't you then call the police?

A. That wasn't my mission.

Q. Whose responsibility was that, in your mind?

A. The bishop and the priesthood.

Q. Was it your understanding that it had been reported?

A. Yes, I was told that.

Q. Who in the Bisbee Ward told you that Paul Adams had been reported by someone in the priesthood or the bishop to the police?

A. The sisters, the visiting teachers, the president of the Relief Society.  All the women were, were together in that this is being taken care of, that he was misbehaving, and that they were going to receive counseling, and everything was going to work out right, and it was nothing for us to be worried about, and pray for them.

There's a lot more in the deposition.  I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.  What she describes is so foreign to my experiences with church that I'm kind of at a loss.

 

emily_reynolds_deposition.pdf

[webbles]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well both, not just the one, knew of the instance of sexual abuse. Somewhere in this thread I swear someone said the 2nd bishop didn't know. I'd have to find it.

The 2nd bishop appears to only know what the 1st bishop told him.  He states that he didn't receive any first-hand knowledge.  So only the first bishop actually heard about it and it was a single event, not ongoing abuse.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

The 2nd bishop appears to only know what the 1st bishop told him.  He states that he didn't receive any first-hand knowledge.  So only the first bishop actually heard about it and it was a single event, not ongoing abuse.

 I thought I read that he informed the 2nd bishop of the situation.

[helix]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well both, not just the one, knew of the instance of sexual abuse. Somewhere in this thread I swear someone said the 2nd bishop didn't know. I'd have to find it.

It was the the clerk who didn't know.  He also fostered their kids for a while.  He was the one who was the clerk at the excommunication.

That he didn't know there was sex abuse on a child indicates Paul was excommunicated for sexual relations with his mother.

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 I thought I read that he informed the 2nd bishop of the situation.

Depends on who "he" is in your statement.  The 1st bishop did tell the 2nd bishop about the confession.  We have no indication that the abuser told the 2nd bishop.  We also aren't sure what was discussed in the excommunication.  It is sounding more and more like he was excommunicated for incest, sexual deviance, and one instance of child abuse.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

Here's what Herrod says:

Here's what Mauzy says:

So neither of them actually say she was a Relief Society member.

I did find her deposition and I've attached it.  She was technically in a different ward (Elfrida Ward) but her mom, living in Bisbee, got sick and so for a part of the time she attended the Bisbee ward.  It looks like she attended the Bisbee ward from roughly 2008-2012.  She stopped attending because of a bad experience with Dr. Herrod.  She feels like she has been shunned since she stopped going.

She was baptized in her 50s, though she attended for years as a nonmember.  She was never in any presidency.  She was a visiting teacher in Bisbee but never visited the Adams.

Here's probably the clearest statement about what she knew:

I'm not sure what to make of this.  I've never been to Relief Society but I don't think I've ever heard about Relief Society talking about sexual items found at other members houses.  I'm also confused on how this discussion is happening when Leizza Adams is there every week as well.  It feels a little unreal.

You might notice that she is basically saying every single woman in Relief Society knew enough to guess that sexual abuse was happening.  So why didn't any of them report it?  From the deposition:

There's a lot more in the deposition.  I'm not exactly sure what to make of it.  What she describes is so foreign to my experiences with church that I'm kind of at a loss.

 

emily_reynolds_deposition.pdf 202.97 kB · 0 downloads

I been in Primary or the library for the majority of the time I made it to church, but I don’t recognize any RS I attended or heard about in her comments. I cannot imagine a conversation like that among the sisters in any ward I have been in.  Not saying there was no gossip, but definitely not in the meeting. There may have been a short comment on someone being sick and needing help, but there was no report by VTs, no sharing of went on and any one’s home. 
 

If the first time she reported anything was after it was after Adams was arrested, my guess is she got her information then, not earlier.  That is the only way I can explain it unless it was a very twisted ward. 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, helix said:

It was the the clerk who didn't know.  He also fostered their kids for a while.  He was the one who was the clerk at the excommunication.

That he didn't know there was sex abuse on a child indicates Paul was excommunicated for sexual relations with his mother.

Or adultery. It was publicly known iirc he had an affair. 

[Calm]

She is reported as Emily Reynolds, but she says everyone called her Linda, her middle name. Her parents got divorced when she was young. Perhaps her mother remarried eventually and so has a different last name. The bishops could have remembered her as Linda _____, her mother’s new last name.  
 

There is also mention of a caretaker and some confusion. Perhaps she is ill or has memory issues?

 

30 people in a ward?  We had that many in the Moscow branch. I have doubts about her memory from this. 
 

Not knowing how to explain the men’s part as a Priesthood meeting is rather odd, too. She is stumbling over stuff that is very simple, how to explain the meeting structure. 
 

She was doing fine describing the temple recommend and then says “higher bishop”.  Perhaps she means the stake President?

Women are told by the men to “be sweet” (Meaning subservient) 

Can someone from Arizona tell me if this is part of church culture there?

added as I am reading it:

The police did not find her, she responded to an ad by the attorney suing the church about anyone who knew anything about the Bisbee ward. 
“ A. I can't remember if it was on TV or if it was on
22 Facebook or if it was on -- it was on some -- I saw some
23 kind of announcement, and it said, if you -- if you -- I
24 don't even think it was you in the announcement saying,
25 if you know anything about the Bisbee Ward --”

On why the mother didn’t tell the Bishop:

”. I don't think there would be a man in the church that would believe her, for one thing. And look at what
she's got to lose. She'll lose her sisters, her brothers, maybe her kids, and get kicked out of the church. And being shunned is the -- that would be horrible.”

I think Ms Reynolds is showing bias here. Child abuse has been in the news for ages. Why wouldn’t people believe the mom?  Plus the mom knew the bishop knew and talked to her about it, so that doesn’t make sense. If the bishop believed in the one case of sexual abuse, why wouldn’t he believe in more if she had been honest with him?  And according to Warr, she asked Leizza multiple times about abuse and Leizza always denied it. That sounds like a visiting teacher predisposed to believe he was abusive, not completely skeptical. 
 

“MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
A. Oh, because -- because whatever their crime was was discussed in Relief Society. So it was very clear:
This one had committed adultery, this one was a drinker, this one was doing pornography. Whatever the crime was was discussed. But nobody said, "Shun so-and-so," no...”

I appear to have missed all the juicier RS meetings. Dang!

”Well, it's not announced like a class. It's like, for a better word, it's like gossip before Relief Society: Did you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, we'd better pray for him; this is what happened, and he's not an active member right now, we'd better pray for him, but if you see him, you know…”

This makes more sense. I can see it if there was a set of women who tended to gossip if that is what she actually means, but as anything organized, it just didn’t seem right. Still, from before she is talking about making welfare reports at the same time as gossiping, I wonder if memory is distorted or if she is expressing herself poorly by not differentiating between the two?

Wait, they will openly gossip all about the lubricant all over, but they won’t say any details about a woman being beaten by her husband?

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[helix]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 And according to Warr, she asked Leizza multiple times about abuse and Leizza always denied it.

Warr did more than that, she was the main visiting teacher who had the closest contact.  She went into the home.  Sometimes brought candy for he kids.  Sometimes helped with food orders.  She taught the kids in primary and tried numerous ways to get the kids to open up.  She suspected something but couldn't get any evidence.  Warr assisted Leizza when Paul was arrested, and that's when Leizza finally told her.  Warr tried to help her leave the marriage.   Leizza shredded documents, Warr tried to talk her out of it but Leizza testified she wouldn't listen to Warr.   And what did Warr get for all this trouble trying to help the family?  She's now being sued for damages and having her name falsely dragged through the mud. 

Emily Reynolds stated in her deposition that everyone knew what went on in the Adams home, because the visiting teachers went in and the visiting teachers reported it all back to the ward.  She said she attended the Brisbee ward up through 2012 despite her names being in another ward.  When pressed for names of Brisbee sisters who told her what was going on in the Adams home, she adamantly refused to give any and at one point tried to stop answering questions entirely.  Then Reynolds said she didn't suspect it was sexual abuse but spanking.  Then Reynolds was asked if she knew Warr, and she said she did not (!).  Then Reynolds said she loves the church but she won't attend because she's mad at it.  Then she said she stopped attending the ward less than a year after Bishop Herrod became bishop (which would mean she stopped attending around 2009).   Reynolds's deposition is bizarre...and...crotchety. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[Calm]

Continuing her declaration:

In response to being asked what do the priesthood do?:  

”Everything. They are the decision-makers, and they meet with the bishop to decide finances, who gets relief, who doesn't get relief, who needs a ride to the temple, just about everything in the church, whose -- where's the canton going to be, the symbol, where's the canton going to be next weekend, to everything in the
church, and all the callings.”

Canton?  Symbol?  What is she talking about?  Anyone know?  Could the reporter have misheard her?  If so, any guesses?

”A. No, I sure don't. Linda, my visiting teacher, Linda might know, but I don't remember anymore. I've
tried to block most of this stuff out.
Q. So you've tried to block it out?
A. Um-hum.
Q. And why is that?
A. I -- I think I had severe distress after, with, during all this, severe, severe distress, and I felt -- the worst feeling of all is I felt helpless….”

”A. Well, I've been heavily active since I was 12, and I'll be 75 in October.
Q. And when did you leave? I think I have the records. Do you want me to show them?
A. No, I know when I left.
Q. Okay. How old were you when you left?
A. It doesn't matter when I left.”

Weird, defensive answer, imo. 
 

The alleged colonoscopy while she was awake…if he did that, wouldn’t that be medical malpractice?  It sounds very strange. 
 

“I have stage four renal failure, and I've been in stage five twice, but I've refused dialysis. I don't like it at all, and I refused dialysis. But I got better after I refused dialysis.
Q. Really?
A. A little better. I'm in stage four. That's better than stage five.
Q. And do you take any drugs to cause you to not be yourself, so to speak?
A. No, I can't -- I can't take drugs because my kidneys can't process drugs.
Q. So you don't have any pain relievers that you take?
A. Oh, no, I'm not allowed to take pain relievers or drink or even -- beer's the worst. Like, I don't…”

“Okay. Ms. Reynolds, this is Bill Maledon. I'm an attorney in Phoenix, and --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- I represent the church defendants in this litigation.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me just -- let me just preface my questions, if I could, by telling you that I'm sorry that you and Ms. Cadigan think we're being rude. It is not my intent, and I'm sure it's not the intent of any --
A. Did I say you were being rude?
Q. Well, I'm just -- let me finish, please.
I just want you to understand that I'm not trying to be -- I don't know why it's funny, Ms. Reynolds. I'm
just trying to explain --
A. Because you were being rude by -- because you were being rude while you were telling me you were not being rude. That's what was funny. It was very funny.
Q. Well, I'm trying to explain my conduct in objecting to questions. That's what the rules require me to do.
A. Yes, sir, by all means. But please don't talk tolike I'm a peon. I'm not a peon. I'm a grown woman with --
Q. I understand.
A. -- full faculties.
Q. I understand that, ma'am.”  
 

“Q. I don't know that. I'm asking you. Do you know whether or not that is correct?
A. No, I'm asking you. I'm asking you. Since you have the documents in front of you, and I'm telling you where my physical body is, I'm asking you. Is it possible that my church records are not correct with
where my physical body was?
Q. So let's talk about what you say and see if we can get it that way. Your physical body, as you call it, where -- where --
A. What would you call it?
Q. -- where were you living --
A. What would you call it? You're making it sound like I'm saying something so stupid. What would you
call it, if you wouldn't call it a physical body? You know, you're really upsetting me. This is one of the reasons that I'm not in the Mormon Church
right now, is your empirical attitude when you're talking to me, and the finger and the whole thing is not
a good vibe.
Q. Well, be that as it may, Ms. Reynolds, let me ask it this way, if I could. Where were you living in January of 2011?”

“ving on Congdon, C-o-n-g-d-o-n, Avenue, Bisbee, Arizona, tending to my mother who had had a stroke.
Q. And how long did you live at that address in Bisbee?
A. Three years. And I still had the address in Elfrida. I still have the ranch today.
Q. All right. Were you -- were you ever a member of the Elfrida Ward?
A. Yes.
Q. During what years?
A. Whatever, whatever you say, I was attending there, whatever you say, because I'm not going to argue
with you.
Q. All right. Well, the records indicate that you were a member of the Elfrida ward from February 2011 until the end of 2014. Would you have any reason to quarrel with that?
A. Yes, because I'm not a hologram. I was in Bisbee. I can tell you who I was with, I can tell you who my visiting teacher was, and I was not a hologram to
them either.
Q. Okay.
A. If you are trying to tell me that I wasn't in Bisbee, then that is incorrect….”

She says she doesn’t remember names or faces, but she does remember “But I will -- I will tell you none of them will
acknowledge me in the Safeway or Ace Hardware.”

“I'll tell you, since I bared all for Dr. Herrod, I remember him very well, and I -- and everything that, every word he's ever uttered to me I can remember very well. I'm sure he doesn't remember me because the stuff that he has done is probably irrelevant because he's
done it so much, but I recall it well.
I've told my story to my therapist many times, in
detail. And I will tell it in front of Dr. Herrod, what he did to me.”

”Q. (By Mr. Maledon) So, I'm sorry, I don't want to drag this out, Ms. Reynolds, but there's just some of these questions that I need to ask to clarify things.
So, you said it wasn't your role to have a conversation with Bishop Herrod in his capacity as bishop. Do I take from that correctly that, other than the time he introduced himself as bishop, you never had a conversation with him at church or about church issues, in his capacity as bishop? Is that right?
A. That was --
MS. CADIGAN: Objection, form. Go ahead.
A. That was not my place, to have a conversation with the head of the church.
Q. (By Mr. Maledon) Thank you. You -- you also said that, there was a -- there was a term that Ms. Cadigan asked you about, that women were told to "be sweet." Who was it --
A. Yes.
Q. Who was it that told you that?
A. It would be easier to tell -- tell you who did not say that, because women said it, priesthood said it,
everybody said it.

A. Oh, now you want me -- now you want me to write down names and places and times? It was a common phrase.
Q. Let me -- let me ask this question, Ms. Reynolds. Did -- you said that the priests would say that. Who are you talking about when you say "priests," who?
MS. CADIGAN: Objection, form. Didn't you say all the men -- are all the men priests? Is that what you said?
THE WITNESS: The priesthood.
MS. CADIGAN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Not all, not all the men are
priesthood, no.
MS. CADIGAN: Okay. Well, here, look, he's --
Q. (By Mr. Maledon) You said the priesthood would use the term. Who are the members of the priesthood that you recall who used the term or told women to be sweet? Can you name any of them?
A. No, I cannot. It is a common phrase.
Q. All right.
MS. CADIGAN: What was that answer? I didn't
hear you.
THE WITNESS: He said can I name, name who said that…

Yes, many, many, and I'm not going to name any more, anybody else. It was common, common knowledge.
MS. CADIGAN: And why won't you name anyone else? MR. MALEDON: Lynne, I'm asking --
MS. CADIGAN: I mean, I'm just wondering why she
won't name them.
MR. MALEDON: I'm asking the questions. THE WITNESS: Because Linda Drake -- because
Linda Drake is the bravest woman I know, and I don't think anybody else could bear it.
Q. (By Mr. Maledon) So you're saying that you know the names of other people that told you that Paul Adams was doing inappropriate things with his children, but you won't tell me who they are?
A. It would be for nought, sir, for me to give you names, it would be for nought, because they're not going
to tell you anything, ever.
Q. Okay. The -- the problem that I have, Ms. Reynolds, is that you and Ms. Cadigan say, well, it was common knowledge. How can I test that if I can't talk to the people that you say had this knowledge. So do you --
MS. CADIGAN: Objection, calls for --
Q. (By Mr. Maledon) -- want to give me the names….”

I don’t buy it. Earlier she says it took her two months to remember Linda Drake’s name, who was her visiting teacher. And she said she didn’t remember the names of the RS Presidents. She has given no one’s name except for Herrod and Drake and a Judge Lamb who drover her to church every Sunday.  I don’t think she can remember the names and her protesting she does makes the rest less reliable to me. I could be reading into it, but she sounds like people I know who have memory issues and don’t want to admit it (my experience is limited, so I may be wrong).

”with whom you learned this information, other than Linda Drake?
A. Sir, I'm not going to tell you names. You do not have to believe anything I say.
Q. It's not a question of belief.
A. I don't need to ver- -- I don't -- I don't need to verify anything I've said. I gave my test- -- I gave my --
THE WITNESS: What do you call this?
MS. CADIGAN: Your oath.
A. I gave my oath at the beginning of this
conversation. My oath is still active, I believe, even though we've had interruptions. It's not going to change the truth, and giving you names is not going to change my truth.
If you want to go after all these ladies and drill them like you're drilling me, that's not my intention.
Q. (By Mr. Maledon) Do you -- so you remember Linda Drake. When's the last time you spoke to Linda Drake?
A. I don't see that's any of your concern.
You do know Linda Drake won't talk to me. You know Linda Drake will not even look at me in the grocery store or anyplace else in town. You do know that,
right.”

Gets rather interesting…

”Q. Ms. Reynolds, I'm not going to argue with you. This is not what a deposition is --
A. Oh, I thought you were. I thought that was the intent.
Q. No, it's not the intent at all.
A. To make -- to make me look -- to make me look stupid and small I thought was your intent.
Q. Not at all, Ms. Reynolds. My intent is to --
A. Am I wrong? Okay.
Q. -- get information. So --
A. Well, you've asked me over and over and over and over. I'm going to sleep very well tonight. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Q. When was it that you left the LDS Church?
A. I'm not talking to you anymore.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I'm not talking to you anymore.
MS. CADIGAN: Do we want someone else to pick up some questioning now, just for like a break, Bill?
MR. MALEDON: No, Lynne, I'm not going to -- look, you know the rules. You subpoenaed or got this witness to come testify. I'm entitled to ask my questions, just as you did.
If the witness is not going to answer my questions, then the deposition is a nullity”

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, helix said:

.  Then Reynolds was asked if she knew Warr, and she said she did not (!).  Then Reynolds said she loves the church but she won't attend because she's mad at it.  Then she said she stopped attending the ward less than a year after Bishop Herrod became bishop (which would mean she stopped attending around 2009).   Reynolds's deposition is bizarre...and...crotchety. 

I am not there yet, this testimony is getting more and more bizarre. I can see why her AP interview was probably so short, she had little of value to say that I have seen and what she did claim, she can’t back up with anything but “I took the oath!”.