(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[Calm]

More:

”A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. I am not going to tell you the names of everybody in the Relief Society, because you know that. You've got a total list of times and dates and everywhere.
And the second reason I'm not going to say anything is because you will go after them just like you've done to me. This hasn't been kindly or loving, or Christian, I might add, the way that you talk to me. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't wish that on the worst sister in the world.
Q. Did you talk about the Adams family with Linda Drake?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you discuss with Linda Drake about the Adams family?
A. Ask Linda. I've already told you everything. I've told you everything that I know. So you ask Linda
what we discussed.”

”Why, why do you keep doing this? I've told you, and I've told you, and I've told you once again. I am not -- why, why are you doing this? Do you want me to cry? Do you want me to shake from lack of sugar? What is it you want from me that I haven't told you? Please, tell me that, because I've told you everything else. Q. Ma'am, I'm trying to be as straightforward with you as possible. You're the one that stepped up and interjected yourself into this --
A. Am I not being straightforward with you? Am I not being straightforward with you? Am I not being straightforward with you?
Q. -- litigation.
Well, actually, ma'am, you're not, because you're
not telling me the names. If you know the names, I'm entitled to know the names. You're the one that stepped forward and interjected yourself into this litigation against the church. The church is being sued. It has a right to defend itself. And if you're not going to tell me, that's fine, I can't force you to. But I have a right to ask questions, and that's all I'm doing, so --
A. And you have had that right, 27 times you've had that right, over and over and over. Should I do it 27 times? Should I --”

”A. I'm not allowed to go to the Bisbee LDS Church. I'm not spoken to in -- from the LDS or looked at or conversed with. In my community, my own community, I'm
not allowed to do that.
Q. When was it -- when was the first time that you were not allowed to attend church in Bisbee?
A. Does it matter?
Q. Ma'am, I'm simply trying to get an understanding of the timeframe.
A. I'm simply answering you. I'm simply answering you. That's all I'm simply doing.
Q. It does matter, ma'am, to answer your question. When was the last time that you attended church
services?
A. It's been years. It's been years. If you haven't noticed, I'm a vocal person. If you've noticed, I'm outspoken. If you notice, I have the values that my father gave me, my wonderful father gave me, and I'm
going to stick to those values until the day I die. When I became outspoken, it was very clear that I was not welcomed in the LDS Church, very clear.”

Nothing solid. Like helix says, she is getting timing mixed up and has never heard of Warr.

I wonder if she is diabetic as she refers to low blood sugar and that could explain some of the aggression. My daughter never responds that way when her sugars are low, so it’s not a given, but I  have had friends and known kids who get aggressive.  Though you can have blood sugar issues with kidney disease and not have diabetes, but I assume the aggressiveness is much the same.  Or maybe she just enjoys drama. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

“Q. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Some of the other defense counsel may have questions. Thank you
Ms. Reynolds, for your time.
THE WITNESS: I think I misspoke on the last
question.
MS. CADIGAN: He just -- just a minute. What did
you say?
THE WITNESS: I think I misspoke on the last
question.
MS. CADIGAN: What do you mean?
THE WITNESS: I don't think it was after the
procedure. I think it was -- I think it was long after the procedure, but it was -- it was like a mold growing into my head.
MS. CADIGAN: Okay.”

And why she won’t share names (Cadigan was trying to save it by leading her to say she didn’t want to be a rat among others things, lol):

”A. Oh, it's so complicated. Number one -- Come here, kitty baby.
-- it's so complicated. Because I have the
military experience, I've been yelled at by men, I've been, all this stuff, I've been spit on by men. I don't think they could handle it. I really think they would crack.
Also, I wouldn't want this experience on any of my sisters.”

[JustAnAustralian]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

A. Well, I've been heavily active since I was 12, and I'll be 75 in October.

How has she managed to go 63 years as "heavily active" in the church, and yet seem to have no idea about how the church at a local level works?

[Calm]

Just now, JustAnAustralian said:

How has she managed to go 63 years as "heavily active" in the church, and yet seem to have no idea about how the church at a local level works?

There is some stuff she is obviously familiar with, but she lacks language and knowledge in odd areas. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

How has she managed to go 63 years as "heavily active" in the church, and yet seem to have no idea about how the church at a local level works?

She also calls herself “Jack”, so she hasn’t been active all those 63 years. Since she refuses to give any detail, can’t tell how often she went, though up until her friend, Judge Lamb, died, it sounds like every Sunday. But she doesn’t say when he died.  I can’t tell if she stopped attending church altogether except rarely in her home ward after the first year of Herrod’s calling as bishop or if she just stopped attending Bisbee. 

[Calm]

I have to say one more thing…

I think my bishop would be one of the last persons I would ever want to give me an colonoscopy. Just imaging every Sunday after that…

[Calm]

3 hours ago, helix said:

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. 

According to Mauzy’s testimony I just opened up, Herrod was bishop from 2004-2012.  Seems a bit long, but if so, according to her own timeline, Reynolds would not have been going to that ward since the Adamses started coming in 2009 according to Mauzy. I need to check Herrod’s testimony to be sure. Added:  Herrod confirms 8 years. 
 

If Cadigan is relying on Reynolds’ testimony at all, she looks desperate to prove prior knowledge. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

I've just finished reading the Reynolds  deposition. For her benefit I really hope they don't try and use her as a trial witness. Based on her conduct she'd end up getting into an argument with the judge when told she has to answer questions.

Edited August 23, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[helix]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

According to Maury’s testimony I just opened up, Herrod was bishop from 2004-2012.  Seems a bit long, but if so, according to her own timeline, Reynolds would not have been going to that ward since the Adamses started coming in 2009 according to Mauzy. I need to check Herrod’s testimony to be sure. Added:  Herrod confirms 8 years. 
 

If Cadigan is relying on Reynolds’ testimony at all, she looks desperate to prove prior knowledge. 

Right.  I had it in my head he was in at 2009.  Since Herrod came in at 2004, and she said she stopped attending less than a year afterward, that really messes up her timeline.  She is kind of wild in her testimony, but I think the easiest reconciling with her is that she didn't mean to say soon after he became a bishop she saw him as a doctor (for a non-sedated colonoscopy?)   But rather that soon after she saw him at his medical office she stopped attending. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[helix]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure this part is right.  Per the transcripts of the 2018 hearing at which the investigator testified (about what Herrod told him) (my summary) :

Agent Edwards's testimony related to what Herrod told him is completely wrong.  Edwards contradicts what is found in his own interview with Herrod.  Herrod said no such thing, at all, in the interview.  Edwards's recollection got key basic facts wrong. 

When you look at the transcript of Edwards's interview with Herrod, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Leizza's testimony, and Warr's testimony, then a constant and clear pattern emerges.  Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested.  Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that Paul was rarely at home and Leizza never let him be alone with the kids.  Also, in that one confessional meeting, the most consistent answer with the first hand sources was the confession referred to one past incident, but more than one past incident in the confession is a possibility.

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

for a non-sedated colonoscopy?

Apparently they do happen.  Discomfort can be significant.   Perhaps with her renal issues, it might have been a good idea to not put her under as it can make it harder to eliminate the drug and can deteriorate renal function even more.***  Since she refuses to undergo dialysis as well as her overall demeanor, she doesn’t appear to be someone who would just sit there and take it from even a doctor if she wasn’t clearly informed why they couldn’t knock her out.  But she could have easily forgotten after 10-15 years and only remember the pain and created the story of the botched colonoscopy and the shunning to explain bits and pieces of memory.  And once she reads the report of the Adams family, that gets added in.

She wouldn’t even tolerate the relatively polite interrogation by the attorney because it made her uncomfortable.  And what doctor would proceed without an agreement with a high risk patient?  So the doctor story makes sense for a renal failure patient and I can see why she might then get barred from the Bisbee ward only as she said (at least “encouraged”not to come) if she was vocal in her complaints about her treatment as seems likely given the snapshot of her here.  But also after her mother died, I can see the bishop telling her she needed to attend her own home ward and that offending her as well.  Then she can’t remember people’s names or faces, so vaguely familiar people at the store are assumed to be her former friends/ward members who are now cutting her dead in Safeway because the reality is they are total strangers.  That type of paranoia is common with dementia, I believe.  My mother and grandmother, both victims (yes, I am hoping I take after my dad’s side) had elaborate and bizarre stories to shift the blame of their own shortcomings to others (my favourite is I had stolen my grandmother’s temple clothing when I cleaned her house; when I showed her it was stored in the top of the closet, it wasn’t that she forgot it was there, it was because I had brought it back knowing she was going to ask me about it…I could not convince her that 1) I had no need of her temple clothing since I had my own, 2) how did it make sense to steal temple clothing to go to the temple when that would be a sin, 3) I was not a mind reader to know she was looking for it before she told me, and 4) yech to wearing my grandma’s clothes…I restrained myself from sharing the last reason, of course).
 

Reynolds is talking back to an attorney rather aggressively.  Unless her personality has really changed (and that can happen with dementia and temporarily if it was aggression due to low blood sugar), does she seem like someone who would just sit there and do nothing if she had actually been informed about abuse?  Especially since she said she had received special training for reporting abuse since she had been a teacher or something?  I assume she was retired because of her health issues, but prior to retiring there is a very good chance she was a mandatory reporter.  Assuming again that her story is semi true, even if she believed at first the Church was handling it, she would have seen no legal action against the father, so why wouldn’t she act at that time?  So far she is the only who claims she and others knew it was an ongoing issue with all the talk of what was in the house.  She makes an excuse for herself that she first thought it was spanking, but seriously if she had training on reporting, with her personality…I just don’t see it making sense and I think if she gets put on the stand as a witness she will be discredited by her not reporting it herself if it was so obvious that everyone knew as she claimed…that is if she isn’t ripped apart (hopefully politely) for not actually being in the ward at the same time as the Adams and unknown to the bishops.  
 

What records are kept of frequent visitors to wards, btw?  Would there actually be tracking of her by the Church as it sounds like at the beginning she was not an official member of the ward.  It sounds like she was only a VT for a short time before her health got too bad.  If Linda Drake was her companion and not her mother’s VTer, she would have to be an actual member though.  Maybe I will go read that part again.  Her never having her own VT or rather never having one show up is, unfortunately, believable.  And unfortunately there is a good chance that if she was a patient of Dr. Herrod, any record would be gone as it would be bare minimum ten years since she was treated if we assume she just got her dates wrong.  Legally in Arizona they only have to hold on to them for 6 years and Herrod even sold his practice, so they likely purged what they could.  I can also imagine if he just treated her for the colonoscopy as is implied by her description, why he might forget her name.  Though I think if she made a big deal of it at church enough to get ‘shunned’, he would have remembered.  There is a Linda Drake living in Bisbee according to white pages.  She is in her 80’s.  Hopefully her memory is sharp.

***https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5018084/

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Agent Edwards's testimony related to what Herrod told him is completely wrong.  Edwards contradicts what is found in his own interview with Herrod.  Herrod said no such thing, at all, in the interview.  Edwards's recollection got key basic facts wrong. 

When you look at the transcript of Edwards's interview with Herrod, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Leizza's testimony, and Warr's testimony, then a constant and clear pattern emerges.  Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested.  Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that Herrod was rarely at home and Leizza never let him be alone with the kids.  Also, in that one confessional meeting, the most consistent answer with the first hand sources was the confession referred to one past incident, but more than one past incident in the confession is a possibility.

It is common for abusers even when they initiate confession to downplay the abuse, so it makes sense to me Adams would test the waters or ease his conscience or whatever triggered the confession by just reporting a one time event that could appear as a first experience (it sounded like he didn’t mention any recording of it and only having her touch him inappropriately unless I blurred out something worse).  If the implication was it as the first time anything had happened and that was what was admitted, it makes more sense why Herrod could believe it was controlled afterwards by just his wife being around. Not sure how it could be proven that is all he said.  Leizza is not a credible source given her story changing frequently.

[JustAnAustralian]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

What records are kept of frequent visitors to wards, btw?

I'm not sure any would be. They wouldn't appear on any attendance roles so any attendance records would have to be manually added on paper, and at that time, there was no way to mark attendance by person through the church system as far as I'm aware. 

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would there actually be tracking of her by the Church as it sounds like at the beginning she was not an official member of the ward.

Her actual ward might have recorded her as absent, absent, absent, absent, absent etc. 

 

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Linda Drake was her companion and not her mother’s VTer, she would have to be an actual member though.

Yes. Though she also appears to say in her deposition (pages 29-30), ...

Quote

22 Q. (By Ms. Cadigan) So, it's my understanding that

23 it's a calling?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And that the bishop chooses the visiting teacher?

MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.

2 A. I would -- I would say that the visiting teacher

3 recommends to the bishop, and the bishop makes the

4 decision. That's how I -- that's how I always saw it.

5 I could be wrong. I'm not an expert in -- in the church

6 at all.

I'm not sure what "the visiting teacher recommends to the bishop" means. It almost sounds as if she's saying a potential VT nominates themselves, and the bishop approves. That being the case she could have just started being a VT off her own back and just gone with Linda.

Edited August 23, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'm not sure any would be. They wouldn't appear on any attendance roles so any attendance records would have to be manually added on paper, and at that time, there was no way to mark attendance by person through the church system as far as I'm aware. 

Her actual ward might have recorded her as absent, absent, absent, absent, absent etc. 

 

Yes. Though she also appears to say in her deposition (pages 29-30), ...

I'm not sure what "the visiting teacher recommends to the bishop" means. It almost sounds as if she's saying a potential VT nominates themselves, and the bishop approves. That being the case she could have just started being a VT off her own back and just gone with Linda.

That is what I thought about the attendance, nice to know I wasn’t clueless.  

She may have meant the VT supervisor, RS counselor in charge of VT (I can’t remember if this was an assignment for one counselor or not), or the RS President and just been confused.  I believe it is actually the RS Presidency as a whole, at least that is the way it has been described to me, the perennial primary teacher/librarian (well, until I became practically nothing at all).  I just assumed she was vague on the actual title, may have remembered an interview.  She got a few terms wrong, so consistent.  I am getting some terms wrong, so it is easy for me to believe, lol.

[Calm]

From the summary judgment document 

Quote

. Plaintiffs’ father,
18 Paul Adams, made a limited confession of abuse to Bishop Herrod in late 2011 and again to
19 Bishop Mauzy in mid-2013. 

https://mormonr.org/cmsfiles/0/L3VzZXJzJTJGWFFMcFd5bGlDdlMyRzkzUzZUa2IwdkcxMnV4MiUyRnNjYW4tOTY3NzlkYTctZGZiMS00Y2U3LWE3MmYtZGNjODhkOGI1MjRlLnBkZj9hbHQ9bWVkaWEmdG9rZW49ZDk1YTEwODMtYjRkNS00ZGNkLWJiM2MtZDVlMGRkNWFlYmVj/f13b4fd91583476d4909502ef5fefba1c8bc759ff92a4c44cfae4760a73dde24/filename.pdf%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3Dd95a1083-b4d5-4dcd-bb3c-d5e0dd5aebec

Quote

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….

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…

My limited disclosure did not include the substance of any confession or confidential information that I had received from Paul Adams or Leizza Adams, and I attempted to explain to Agent Edwards that I could not discuss with him such substance because it was confidential.
20. I also shared with Agent Edwards information regarding Paul Adams that I first learned from press reports after Paul Adams was arrested.

For some reason I can not copy the last page.  He says Warr never reported any issues.  If Warr did help with paying bills and food, it seems it came out of her own pocket.  I had thought she had been acting on behalf of the ward with welfare.  Pretty dedicated woman it would seem, giving her time, her money, and willing to risk her own life by taking on a violent, likely armed trained agent to protect the family.  I hope if that is the correct picture of her, that will come out, but I fear it won’t.

But I am also surprised that she never spoke of her concerns with Bishop Mauzy apparently.  Maybe she spoke to Herrod and assumed it was passed on or maybe it was common knowledge so everyone assumed he knew. (Added:  she wasn’t in the ward when Herrod was bishop)

From her own testimony:

https://mormonr.org/cmsfiles/0/L3VzZXJzJTJGWFFMcFd5bGlDdlMyRzkzUzZUa2IwdkcxMnV4MiUyRnNjYW4tMTk2MzU1NjAtYTAzYy00MDNkLWJkODktZWEwMzRkY2M5MTNiLnBkZj9hbHQ9bWVkaWEmdG9rZW49NmM4ODUyYWItMzNkYS00ZGRiLThhMjUtYjcxNTA0OTNmYWY3/fe2802938ca50ab6ec671d0f4e476ac23ae6184f0cd612f807f165246cc3179d/filename.pdf%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3D6c8852ab-33da-4ddb-8a25-b7150493faf7

Quote

Q And can you tell the court, um, why was Paul Adams

terminated from Border Patrol?

A The first -- he was actually -- the first time he had given his car or loaned his car to an illegal, um, woman, that he was sleeping with actually. She was taking something illegal up to Phoenix, was pulled over; the registration came back to him. They put him on light duty, did an investigation. And what they did is they took his law enforcement away from him. So they took his badge, his gun, and gave him a missions support job.

The second time he was fired. He made terroristic threats against our station. And it's the Douglas Border Patrol station. He had to go to court for this. He had to go to classes, anger management. And then he had to reapply. They brought him back. And I believe he was at Naco station in the missions support roll for like a week when he was arrested, and obviously fired again.

Q Were you surprised that he had made terroristic threats against the Border Patrol station while he was a Patrol agent?

A Not at all.

Q Okay. Why?

A Um, he had talked about things like that before, um, just in passing. Or he would say: Oh, I'm joking around. Um, whenever he was angry he had a quick temper, quick, quick temper. And if you made him angry, he was going, like he was going to come for you. So that day he was angry at some supervisors; and, boom: I'm going to come back here, and what if people just started picking off as they come out of the station.

Q When you were in the room with Paul at the Border Patrol station did you make an effort to make sure that you were not the first person that he would confront?

A I was always personable to Paul. I would say hi because I was not going to be the first one when he went crazy to be shot basically. I knew his day would come. He was crazy. He just had this explosive personality. He -- I don't know how to explain it. He had a horrible temper.

And he — I mean, even other agents would say to me, you know: Hey, does that guy go to your church? And I said: Well, his wife and family go to my church; he comes to my church every now and then. Because they were like, he's, he's really weird, he's crazy, he gets that look in his eye. And I said: Oh, kind of like he might go postal? And they said: Yeah, kind of like that. They had seen his you were in the station with Paul, you always made it a situation where if he did go ballistic you would not be in the line of fire to start with?

A No.

Q And could get your gun out and do what you needed to do?…

Q Let me ask you, in your opinion Paul was a violent person?

A. Oh yeah, definitely.

 

Q And he was an unstable person?

A Very much so, up and down.

Q You could have taken care of Paul if Paul -- what? Including when she was leaving the home. Right?

A Uh-huh.

Q Including shooting him if you had to

23 A Yes.

24 Q Okay. But could you take care of Paul if he followed her to California?

A No.

Q Could you --

A And he would have.

Q And could you have taken care of Paul if he became erratic and killed her and killed every single one of their children?

A If I wasn't there? No

Q If you weren't there.

A No, no. And that scared me.

Q Was Paul capable of that?

MS. RANSOM: Objection, foundation.

Also:

 

Quote

Q Okay. And did you observe any differences between when Paul was in town, differences in the children when Paul was in town and when Paul wasn't in town?

A Oh, definitely. I had all of the kids in my Sunday school class, the primary Sunday school class, the little kids. So I've had all of her kids with the exception of phonetic). She was young.

Um, when Paul was in town you could tell the kids were —— they would come in one of two ways. Either extremely combative and like touchy, fighting and everything. It was like there was just tension. And you could tell one thing would just set it off. And that's usually what would happen. We don't have many kids in our primary, so the Adams kids were the majority of them. Primary is the young kids, 12 and under.

Um, or they would come in, and it would be silent. They wouldn't look me in the eye. They wouldn't look each other in the eye. They weren't touching each other. They weren't, they weren't doing normal kid stuff.

10 When Paul was out of town — Paul went on an extended compassionate leave to take care of his parents for three months. When he did that the kids were kids. They were fun. They still picked at each other, but it was normal kid stuff. I mean, it's six kids under the age of nine, you know. They would pick at each other and stuff.

But they had fun. And that was who they were. They would act like themselves. So I, I could tell they -- they used to sit with me during the main meeting, during sacrament meeting, which is kind of like our main mass meeting. And then I taught them for the second two hours of our block. I could pretty much tell as soon as they came in for sacrament meeting when — what was going on….

Did Leizza ever talk to you about abuse?

A No.

Q Of her abuse?

A Not until after Paul was arrested.

Q Of him abusing her?

A Right. I tried to get her to. I asked every way possible. I asked the kids. There was fear in the house. I could tell because five-year-—olds give up everything. They will say anything in the middle of class -- my dog peed on the rug —- in the middle of Sunday school class. You know, we're studying the bible, and they just blurt out stuff.

These kids would not talk about their dad, what went on at home. And I asked, you know, in different ways and different means, and different kids. And I asked Leizza in different ways. But I could tell that there was a lot of fear in the house. The kids were afraid of something. She was afraid of something. So I knew something was going on, but I didn't know what it was.

I wonder how involved Ward’s VT companion was and if she discussed it with her (them) or if she went alone.

https://mormonr.org/cmsfiles/0/L3VzZXJzJTJGWFFMcFd5bGlDdlMyRzkzUzZUa2IwdkcxMnV4MiUyRnNjYW4tYmMyZGVkZTEtYWM4ZC00YjIwLWI3NDAtZGI0ODA3Yzk5MjM0LnBkZj9hbHQ9bWVkaWEmdG9rZW49MjgxZjZmODEtNmVlZi00NzI0LWFkMDgtYmYyYjQ1ZmY4MGFm/d8c8010b10750499e9777443a1421a54b7d063b001d72b5e3fd1cce9d5d3516b/filename.pdf%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3D281f6f81-6eef-4724-ad08-bf2b45ff80af

BTW from Mauzy’s account…

Quote

In the Bisbee Ward, the Relief Society consists of about 20 to 30 women, and it normally meets on Sundays.

With 20 to 30 women in RS, other women in Primary and YW at the time of Mauzy being Bishop, it is highly unlikely that Reynolds memory of 30 people attending church and 10- 15 iirc women in RS is accurate, another example of faulty memory.

Otoh, Warr says the Adams kids were the majority of the Primary, which means around a dozen kids in Primary, so unless most families had teens, it sounds like it was a lot of empty nesters or single adult women.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Reading more of Ward’s testimony. Leizza mentioned the “Drakes” when she was talking to the attorney and corrected their address, so it sounds like she knew the Drakes pretty well (Linda Drake was the only one named by Emily Reynolds).

https://mormonr.org/cmsfiles/0/L3VzZXJzJTJGWFFMcFd5bGlDdlMyRzkzUzZUa2IwdkcxMnV4MiUyRnNjYW4tMTk2MzU1NjAtYTAzYy00MDNkLWJkODktZWEwMzRkY2M5MTNiLnBkZj9hbHQ9bWVkaWEmdG9rZW49NmM4ODUyYWItMzNkYS00ZGRiLThhMjUtYjcxNTA0OTNmYWY3/fe2802938ca50ab6ec671d0f4e476ac23ae6184f0cd612f807f165246cc3179d/filename.pdf%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3D6c8852ab-33da-4ddb-8a25-b7150493faf7

can’t copy the pdf, but Warr says she had a couple of long conversations about Paul’s erratic conduct with her supervisor.  I am still mystified how he managed to stay employed.  They must have been desperate for bodies.

She would only come over to the house when invited and when Paul was not home.  Why would there be sex toys and other stuff out during those times?

Also Warr first offered to help the family leave when Leizza was pregnant with the last child because the kids were acting up worse.  Warr says she had the support of her fellow Border Patrol agents in doing this.  So bosses knew as much as Warr and other agents knew he was likely abusive…why aren’t they being sued as well?  
 

Leizza would just change the subject whenever Warr pushed her to go, so Warr would leave it as ‘call me if you decide to leave’.

Warr wasn’t in the ward when Herrod was bishop, so everything was with Mauzy, so apparently she never talked to the bishop about concerns, just those at work.  Her testimony did not indicate she ever talked to him or anyone in the ward.  I think I misremembered it as the ward was ready to help when it was the Border Patrol agents that were.  I should have refreshed my memory earlier, but honestly wasn’t in the mood for it, it is too depressing.  However, now there are more documents, I want to get a fuller picture as I was left with a lot of questions.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, helix said:

Agent Edwards's testimony related to what Herrod told him is completely wrong.  Edwards contradicts what is found in his own interview with Herrod.  Herrod said no such thing, at all, in the interview.  Edwards's recollection got key basic facts wrong. 

I'm starting to see that.

Edwards as a substantively unreliable narrator.  I had not anticipated that.  

2 hours ago, helix said:

When you look at the transcript of Edwards's interview with Herrod, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Leizza's testimony, and Warr's testimony, then a constant and clear pattern emerges.  Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested. 

That is not at all what Edwards testified to during the hearing.

2 hours ago, helix said:

Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that Herrod was rarely at home and Leizza never let him be alone with the kids. 

"Herrod was rarely at home" should be "Adams was rarely at home," right?

2 hours ago, helix said:

Also, in that one confessional meeting, the most consistent answer with the first hand sources was the confession referred to one past incident, but more than one past incident in the confession is a possibility.

I will need to review the entirety of the transcripts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[helix]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Herrod was rarely at home" should be "Adams was rarely at home," right?

Yes, I fixed that.  Thanks for the info.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I will need to review the entirety of the transcripts.

They're long.  But I found it helpful to go over the list I provided.  Herrods interview, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Warr's testimony, and Leizza's testimony, when read closely, are illuminating.  The ward clerk's testimony isn't that interesting except for when he says he didn't know there was sex abuse in the family (but it is interesting if you like to see two lawyers who don't like each other quarrel constantly). 

Note that I haven't seen Leizza's testimony publicly posted yet available yet.  Webbles grabbed for us the agent's interview with Herrod, which I think it was exhibit 9.  Leizza's testimony was exhibit 8. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by helix

[webbles]

If Reynolds had been talking to a cult that I had superficial knowledge of, her testimony would have been really damaging.  The way she describes how men have all the power, women are supposed to be nice, etc really makes it look like bad.  But since she is talking about the church that I've attended all my life, I have a hard time finding similarities.

I think the plaintiff's attorney is having this problem.  She only sees what Reynolds said.  She doesn't understand what a visiting teacher is or how the Relief Society functions.  So, with just the information from Reynolds, the attorney sees an easy case.  She's also asked for the chance to interview basically every adult member of the Bisbee Ward.  I'm curious to read what they say if/when they are deposed.  If their testimony agrees with Reynolds, my conclusion would be that it is a really messed up ward.  But if their testimony fits more inline with how I understand the church, then it is probably going to be damaging to the attorney's case.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

How has she managed to go 63 years as "heavily active" in the church, and yet seem to have no idea about how the church at a local level works?

Sounds like she's been watching too many shows with Warren Jeffs and the FLDS group and they always tell the women to "keep sweet". But as long as I've been alive that never passed the lips of any man I know.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sounds like she's been watching too many shows with Warren Jeffs and the FLDS group and they always tell the women to "keep sweet". But as long as I've been alive that never passed the lips of any man I know.

That was exactly my thought as well. 

[smac97]

Good Saints Unscripted episode:

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Speaking of child abuse, here is an article that shows a greater push for normalizing pedophilia.

"Miranda Galbreath, who is a licensed sex therapist, posted a video which is, at least for now, unavailable. It was entitled "Let's talk about minor-attracted persons." In it, Galbreath advocates for the use of the term "minor attracted people" and claims that the term "pedophile" is a "judgmental, hurtful insult." She says that pedophiles are "the most vilified population of folks."

"Amid all this rancid and dangerous propaganda, even “folks” is a charged word. While the Post Millennial transcribes the word as “folks,” it is likely that Galbreath said “folx,” which Merriam-Webster, a newly woke company like all the rest of them, explains is “used especially to explicitly signal the inclusion of groups commonly marginalized.” Galbreath is semaphoring to her Leftist audience that pedophiles are or should be considered to be among the Left’s protected victim groups, groups that are prized and privileged because they are supposedly “marginalized.” To redress the wrongs done by white, Christian, cisgendered, heteronormative bigots, these people deserve special consideration and accommodation.

"Galbreath claims that the term minor-attracted person “simply means that the person has an enduring sexual or romantic attraction to minors. They have not chosen this attraction… you don't get to choose to be heterosexual or gay, and you don’t get to choose to be a minor-attracted person." It’s something the poor dears can’t help, you see. Galbreath doesn’t seem to have any interest, meanwhile, in the plight of people who don’t choose to become the victims of pedophiles. They don’t choose, either, but apparently they don’t deserve any consideration."

Okay, that's where I draw a very deep in the crevice of the earth line. 

I will march, I will do everything in my power if this were ever a thing. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, that's where I draw a very deep in the crevice of the earth line. 

I will march, I will do everything in my power if this were ever a thing. 

I'm reminded of an article a while back in which a woman talked about how much she hated children. There was much outrage and fear that this was the first step in a move to normalize child-hatred. It was, of course, click-bait and nothing more. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Speaking of child abuse, here is an article that shows a greater push for normalizing pedophilia.

"Miranda Galbreath, who is a licensed sex therapist, posted a video which is, at least for now, unavailable. It was entitled "Let's talk about minor-attracted persons." In it, Galbreath advocates for the use of the term "minor attracted people" and claims that the term "pedophile" is a "judgmental, hurtful insult." She says that pedophiles are "the most vilified population of folks."

"Amid all this rancid and dangerous propaganda, even “folks” is a charged word. While the Post Millennial transcribes the word as “folks,” it is likely that Galbreath said “folx,” which Merriam-Webster, a newly woke company like all the rest of them, explains is “used especially to explicitly signal the inclusion of groups commonly marginalized.” Galbreath is semaphoring to her Leftist audience that pedophiles are or should be considered to be among the Left’s protected victim groups, groups that are prized and privileged because they are supposedly “marginalized.” To redress the wrongs done by white, Christian, cisgendered, heteronormative bigots, these people deserve special consideration and accommodation.

"Galbreath claims that the term minor-attracted person “simply means that the person has an enduring sexual or romantic attraction to minors. They have not chosen this attraction… you don't get to choose to be heterosexual or gay, and you don’t get to choose to be a minor-attracted person." It’s something the poor dears can’t help, you see. Galbreath doesn’t seem to have any interest, meanwhile, in the plight of people who don’t choose to become the victims of pedophiles. They don’t choose, either, but apparently they don’t deserve any consideration."

I do not know enough of her POV to say whether or not I agree with her. If she is talking about changing attitudes to prevent pedophiles from acting on their desires, I likely agee with her. Not all pedophiles act on their desires. Many work very hard to control themselves, even removing themselves from their families and friends when children are present and therefore living without a support system to help them lower stress which can help avoid risks of acting on their desires because they care more about ensuring they do not victimize others than their own comfort or even happiness.  They need more resources to back them up in their efforts, not less.

By demonizing all of them as evil and inherently not deserving of our care and respect, you prevent those who do not want to act out from being able to admit it and seek help to control their desires. Without that help they are more likely to lose control and create the very victims you are so anxious to prevent. It is only practical Imo to treat those with the desire, but who also desire not to harm anyone with respect and love and to back them up one hundred percent in their efforts.

Nor are all sexual abusers of children pedophiles. Many who choose children as victims are purely opportunistic abusers, children are naturally vulnerable.  Iirc, only a third of sexual child abuse is committed by pedophiles acting on their impulses. By focusing primarily on them, there may be many missed opportunities to recognize and even prevent child sexual abuse.

Those who move from desire to offend should be punished and that includes for the use of child porn not only because it most likely involves a real child somewhere (there are some excusing child porn that uses created images as okay because no actual child is involved), but because by exposing themselves to it, they are showing they care more about satisfying their desire than protecting children and that is a huge red flag.  But never offenders should not be treated as if they have offended. It isn’t just, it isn’t right, and it is stupid because it drives those who need help to hide their problems and to try and deal with it on their own which is more likely to end in failure or worse, cause a non offender to see themselves as already a criminal, so why bother putting effort into self control. 

It should not be normalized in the sense of seeing it as healthy, normal desires.  It should be treated as a disorder that should be controlled until a cure for it is discovered and acting on it and abusing a child should be viewed as a crime.  But having the desire without acting on it shouldn’t be a reason to ostracize an individual from society or to deny them care and respect.  If we knew someone who was from a family of alcoholics who was making an effort to avoid all forms of alcohol out of a desire to avoid triggering a potential addiction, would we view them like a drunk driver who had caused an accident and injured someone or admire them for their wisdom and foresight and seek to support them in their efforts rather than demanding they pretend they have no natural inclination to the disease or treating them as less than human simply because of their family background?

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Calm