(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

 

Thanks for your comment, I guess I need to think of them getting help so they won't abuse.

[bsjkki]

 

[helix]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

 

I've called out Rezednes for his blatant factual errors elsewhere in this forum.  I was hoping it was a one-off and he'd be more careful in his followup article.  But he's still making them.  How AP green lights this stuff is beyond me.

From the latest article: "...show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. "

No Rezendes, the second daughter wasn't even alive, she was born in 2015.  This was even mentioned in the court cases when the Agent Edwards made the same mistake, and then his lawyer handheld him through fixing that mistake later.  Rezednes is not reading the court evidence.

From the article "he AP reported in August that Adams confessed to Herrod in 2010 that he sexually abused his daughter, identified as MJ."

No, it was 2011. The rest of the article covers that, it was late 2011 when he confessed and the bishop phoned the church.

This is after his recent conversation with the Salt Lake Tribune when he stated the church assisted Leizza in shredding documents.  But the court case has testimony from Leizza stating exactly the opposite, that the visiting teacher saw Leizza shredding documents about her husband, the visiting teacher told her she should stop, and Leizza stated she ignored her. 

These are basic, basic factual errors.  This is not good journalism.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, helix said:

I've called out Rezednes for his blatant factual errors elsewhere in this forum.  I was hoping it was a one-off and he'd be more careful in his followup article.  But he's still making them.  How AP green lights this stuff is beyond me.

From the latest article: "...show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. "

No Rezendes, the second daughter wasn't even alive, she was born in 2015.  This was even mentioned in the court cases when the Agent Edwards made the same mistake, and then his lawyer handheld him through fixing that mistake later.  Rezednes is not reading the court evidence.

From the article "he AP reported in August that Adams confessed to Herrod in 2010 that he sexually abused his daughter, identified as MJ."

No, it was 2011. The rest of the article covers that, it was late 2011 when he confessed and the bishop phoned the church.

This is after his recent conversation with the Salt Lake Tribune when he stated the church assisted Leizza in shredding documents.  But the court case has testimony from Leizza stating exactly the opposite, that the visiting teacher saw Leizza shredding documents about her husband, the visiting teacher told her she should stop, and Leizza stated she ignored her. 

These are basic, basic factual errors.  This is not good journalism.

Thank you for pointing out factual errors in the article. Good journalism is hard to find these days. 

[webbles]

So, I'm reading through the linked items.  In 2016, police officers were dispatched to the family because the abuser was hitting and kicking his son.  The incident was outside a coffee shop and police officers arrived and they checked the kids for signs of abuse.  They contacted the Department of Child Safety.  Since no signs of abuse were found and the kids weren't scared of their father, the officers let them go.  This is on page 237-240 of https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs.

[webbles]

The 2 page record that the AP article is talking about can be found on pages 260-261 at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs.

I'm curious to know from anyone who has dealt with a sever case, how many interactions do you generally have with the helpline?  After reading the interview with the second bishop (page 175-195), it sounds like the interactions were discussions about what and when disciplinary actions should be held.

Bishop Herrod first contacts the helpline on Nov 7, 2011.  Probably was told not to report but also told to encourage the abuser and wife to report.

Another call on April 13, 2012.  What would this be about?  3 days later, it says "Note about perpetrator's membership record".  Would they be discussing possible disciplinary actions?  More legal help?

On June 27, 2012, the lawyer left a voice mail.  Then on June 7, 2013, another voice mail to both Bishop Herrod and the stake president.  Why would the lawyer be leaving voice mails?

Also, on June 7, 2013, Bishop Mauzy has a conversation.  So, the lawyer didn't know that that Bishop Herrod had been released?

On June 11, 2013, there s a conversation with the stake president.  I'm guessing this would be around disciplinary actions?

June 29, 2013, another call with Bishop Mauzy and it says that legal advice was given. 

And the last call is July 29, 2013.

At some point, the disciplinary council and excommunication happened.  I'm guessing it is sometime in June or July of 2013.  Also, the incest with his mother was discovered.  I don't think Bishop Herrod knew of that so I'm betting Bishop Mauzy learned of it by June 2013.  Another thing that I learned is that the abuser appealed to the stake.  So they reviewed the case as well.

Is this interaction between the hotline normal?  For either a case that is dealing with child abuse or incest?

 

[helix]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

And the last call is July 29, 2013.

 

The article states: "The log of calls filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals shows that Nelson spoke with Herrod and Mauzy multiple times from November of 2011 to February of 2014,"

Do you not see a February 2014 call in the records?

Edited September 9, 2022 by helix
Typo

[webbles]

41 minutes ago, helix said:

The article states: "The log of calls filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals shows that Nelson spoke with Herrod and Mauzy multiple times from November of 2011 to February of 2014,"

Do you not see a February 2014 call in the records?

There are two entries for 2014.  Both of them are titled "Note regarding membership status of perpetrator" and have the privilege asserted of "work product".  So I doubt those are calls.  The ones that look like calls all have "attorney-client privilege" asserted and their title also says something about calls.

[helix]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

There are two entries for 2014.  Both of them are titled "Note regarding membership status of perpetrator" and have the privilege asserted of "work product".  So I doubt those are calls.  The ones that look like calls all have "attorney-client privilege" asserted and their title also says something about calls.

Oh yes, I see it.  It seems Rezednes is also in error about the phone calls lasting into 2014. 

Now I'm tying to make sense of the contacts.  Only two of these cover "legal advice", one to Herrod and one to Mauzy.  That makes me wonder if these others were more "bookkeeping" emails/voicemails/calls.  If there were multiple different confessions over multiple different dates, I would think those would receive different legal advice rendered.  But I'm just seeing the legal advice to the bishop who heard it in the one meeting, and the same legal advice when Mauzy took over and started the excommunication process.

Edited September 9, 2022 by helix

[helix]

Whew, I just went and read through much of that document weebles just posted.  Much of it is snippets from documents we've already seen here on the forum.  Some of it is testimony I hadn't seen.  One interesting takeaway for me:

 I'm seeing numerous hints that Paul Adams's one-time confession to Bishop Herrod was limited in description and not a full confession.  Herrod didn't know the full scope of the abuse.  Mauzy definitely didn't.  Both tried desperately to pry open to get more info, and walked away with either no new info or minimal info.

 Herrod phoned it into the church in November 2011 when he learned of something going on, and the church's guidelines is that if a child is in immediate danger to contact authorities, which didn't happen here.  Herrod also commented that he didn't know the extent of it all until Adams was arrested many years later.  Herrod said he wouldn't start a disciplinary council if there would be any legal issues pending, so he didn't. 

But more interestingly, Mauzy didn't know much of this at all.  He tried and failed to get any info from the kids.  He tried and failed to get info from Leizza Adams.  He said he once had Paul and Leizza in for counseling and they said nothing.  After Mauzy recounted that he was told nothing, Mauzy said once he found out later what was happening it tore him up, because he wondered how this could go hidden.    Mauzy didn't seem to really know what was going on until the church called him and told him to start a disciplinary hearing based on what Herrod told the church.  While talking about what occurred in the excommunication, he said he got little info from either Paul or Leizza.  He specifically mentioned he had no proof of sexual abuse, because Paul was cagey or vague in how he talked.   Mauzy said tried to get info to help the wheels of justice turn.  As we've pointed out elsewhere (and also is found in this PDF), strong hints are given that he was excommunicated for having sex with his mother.  For example, one of the participants in the disciplinary council reported that he helped foster and care for Paul and Leizza's children, and he remarked that he had no idea there was sexual child abuse going on.   Additionally, Paul refused to talk to Mauzy after the excommunication (until he was arrested and in prison).  Mauzy knew very, very little, and Paul or Leizza wouldn't talk to him about it. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by helix

[Tacenda]

Don't know if this is new news or news that is in more depth of something we were unsure of..

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-politician-lawyer-told-latter-day-saint-bishop-not-to-report-abuse-docs-show?fbclid=IwAR28Ipe1-W4WCV2u1F0Mi3QhPdFRGS_87ch2vZfJZIyVRodtYcelE1_R-i4

Heading says: CHURCH ABUSE "HELPLINE" - Records filed in a lawsuit indicate that Rep. Merrill F. Nelson, a state lawmaker and prominent attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, advised a church bishop not to report a confession of child sex abuse to authorities — a decision that allowed the abuse to continue for years.

[JustAnAustralian]

It's just another copy of the latest AP article that can't even get its own facts straight.