Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Another abuse report…John Goodrich


Recommended Posts

https://www.kcra.com/article/idaho-mormon-church-child-sex-abuse-claims/46022043
 

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-4db829616a5c5cfa351a2e95d778ae9e
 

This is from the reporter who wasn’t great with details from the Adams case, so I would urge caution until we have other confirming sources.

Lights out for me, so dissection comes tomorrow…though thinking Smac and others will get there first.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

I don't have time to read the whole article at the moment, but one large glaring thing popped out and that is the church doesn't keep records of phone calls or reporting to the hotline, I saw that with the Arizona case and it bothered me then. Why is the church so good at keeping all other records but not when it comes to cases like these? I think I already know the answer, or my answer. 

 

Link to comment

I'm surprised that the prosecutors dropped the case.  If they had recordings from the dad confessing to climbing into bed with the daughter when he was aroused and they have the daughter willing to testify, I don't see why they would need to try and break the confessional privilege.  How would the bishop's testimony help?  I would think there is an Idaho law that would at least get him on the sex offender list.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have time to read the whole article at the moment, but one large glaring thing popped out and that is the church doesn't keep records of phone calls or reporting to the hotline, I saw that with the Arizona case and it bothered me then. Why is the church so good at keeping all other records but not when it comes to cases like these? I think I already know the answer, or my answer. 

 

Those phone calls are to a lawyer's office, not the church.  Yes, they are the church's lawyers but they also a lawyers for other entities as well so they supposedly are independent.  If what they are doing is wrong, then they should be punished but I doubt they are doing anything wrong.  Maybe a lawyer could answer if it is normal practice to keep phone records with clients or if they are destroyed?

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Maybe  missed it… why did the church offer any money to the victim? What did this abuse have to do with the church?
 

 

Neither of the articles really explain that and Rytting doesn't clarify.  My gut feeling is that even if they knew the lawsuit would fail, it would be cheaper to just pay $300,000 vs argue the lawsuit.

Link to comment

Here’s a link to what I believe is the full AP article. 
https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-9c301f750725c0f06344f948690caf16

This is horrible, as is all child abuse, but I don’t see anything specific the church should have done differently to stop the abuse. The abuse was by a father of his daughter. He was serving as bishop at some times during the abuse, but there’s nothing to suggest anyone in the church or the family was aware. None of the allegations involve bishop interviews or church activities or locations. Everything was at home or on a school trip to DC. 

Regarding the settlement, I expect that was a business decision to reduce the potential for adverse publicity or an action against the church. Such risk exists even if the church did not wrong.

Regarding the NDA, I don’t have a concern with the church requiring the amount of settlement to be kept confidential. I’m encouraged that the NDA didn’t restrict the victim from discussing the case, just the settlement amount. The one bothersome aspect for me - if true - is the allegation the church requested the victim delete the recordings she’d made of conversations with family members. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

A quote from that article makes me think the reporter doesn't really understand privileges or doesn't care about the facts if they don't fit the narrative:

Quote

In particular, the church would discourage Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession.

The church really has no say in whether Miller (the bishop) can testify or not.  That is not something they control.  The abuser controls that.  Miller would not be able to give testimony unless the abuser allows it.

Here's the Idaho religious privilege definition - https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505

Quote

(b)  General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

so I would urge caution until we have other confirming sources.

Good reminder. Rezednes is lying. Again.

From the Deseret News, respnoding to the narrative that only the bishop knew and only the bishop held the keys to the case:

Quote

No public record of prosecutors saying they needed the bishop’s testimony was immediately available in the public record, and the AP story does not provide any other confirmation for the statement. The AP story notes that Goodrich allegedly confessed the abuse to several other people.

Also, *directly* contradicting the AP journalist who stated: "making a $300,000 offer to Chelsea Goodrich and her mother Lorriane in exchange for their silence "

Quote

In 2017, the church agreed to settle a civil claim made by the survivor. Nothing in the agreement kept her from talking about the abuse she suffered or the facts of the case itself with anyone

Edited by helix
Spelling...
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, webbles said:

Here's the Idaho religious privilege definition - https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505

Correct. Yet here is how Rezednes spun it:
 

Quote

In particular, the church would discourage Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea’s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.

Reality:

In particular, the church told Miller Idaho prevented him from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy, from being allowed to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Prosecutors had numerous witnesses who recall the confession, but felt they could not win in court, and dropped charges. 

Rezednes's spin is incredibly bold and dishonest.

Edited by helix
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, helix said:

In particular, the church told Miller Idaho prevented him from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy, from being allowed to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Prosecutors had numerous witnesses who recall the confession, but felt they could not win in court, and dropped charges. 

Rezednes's spin is incredibly bold and dishonest.

Not only did they have witnesses, they had recordings of the abuser confessing to those witnesses.  And Idaho is a one-party consent state so the recordings were legal.

Link to comment

Trying to understand the seeming contradiction between two Idaho laws, given below. Part of my interest is that in the Arizona case, a lawyer seemed to tell that bishop that Arizona law didn't let him confess, but I asked several with law backgrounds who believed that was in error. But Idaho law is different. Yet one law seems to forbid it and another allow it:

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title16/t16ch16/sect16-1605/

And here:

https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505

The former was law in 2005. The latter is law in 2018. Which one trumps the other?

Edited by helix
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, helix said:

Trying to understand the seeming contradiction between two Idaho laws, given below. Part of my interest is that in the Arizona case, a lawyer seemed to tell that bishop that Arizona law didn't let him confess, but I asked several with law backgrounds who believed that was in error. But Idaho law is different. Yet one law seems to forbid it and another allow it:

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title16/t16ch16/sect16-1605/

And here:

https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505

The former was law in 2005. The latter is law in 2018. Which one trumps the other?

The church lawyer/lawyers were most likely aware of that law in Arizona, they just made a terrible terrible mistake telling that bishop not to go to police. Something I'm thinking will stay with whomever made the decision for the rest of their life/lives.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, webbles said:

Those phone calls are to a lawyer's office, not the church.  Yes, they are the church's lawyers but they also a lawyers for other entities as well so they supposedly are independent.  If what they are doing is wrong, then they should be punished but I doubt they are doing anything wrong.  Maybe a lawyer could answer if it is normal practice to keep phone records with clients or if they are destroyed?

My understanding is that calls to the helpline initially go to a "social worker," who takes notes about the generalized narrative, then transfers the call to an attorney.  I suspect it is the social worker's notes that are destroyed daily, whereas the attorney's notes are preserved.  We've seen "leaks" showing that the Church does keep track of abuse allegations, so the notion that all records pertaining to hotline calls are destroyed is likely incorrect..

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, helix said:

Trying to understand the seeming contradiction between two Idaho laws, given below. Part of my interest is that in the Arizona case, a lawyer seemed to tell that bishop that Arizona law didn't let him confess, but I asked several with law backgrounds who believed that was in error. But Idaho law is different. Yet one law seems to forbid it and another allow it:

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title16/t16ch16/sect16-1605/

And here:

https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505

The former was law in 2005. The latter is law in 2018. Which one trumps the other?

The two laws are dealing with two things.  The ire505 law is about what can be used as evidence.  A clergy could break the privilege and go to the police and the police can act on it but when it goes to trial, the clergy's testimony would not be admissible.

Link to comment
Quote

Two years earlier, in the spring of 2015, Chelsea Goodrich, then a 29-year-old graduate student in psychology living in Southern California, began to confront disturbing memories.

While her peers dated and created lasting relationships, she filled with anxiety and dread at the prospect.

“Instead of wanting to have a relationship, I just remember feeling terror and confusion and kind of disgust, like all at once, about it,” she said during a series of interviews with the AP.

Her memories included several occasions, she recalled, when John Goodrich slipped into her bed at night in their house in Mountain Home, Idaho, to spoon her while he was aroused, pushing himself against her backside. On one occasion, when she was 9, she remembered her father had apologized to her for being aroused while they were playing in the family swimming pool and told her not to tell her mother.

The last similar incident Chelsea recalls occurred during a school field trip to Washington, D.C., where her father admits he climbed into bed with her in a state of arousal and slipped close behind her. John Goodrich admitted that during a recorded conversation, obtained by the AP, with Chelsea, Lorraine and one of Chelsea’s brothers.

Lorraine and Chelsea had been recording their confrontations with John about the alleged abuse, which they would later turn over to police.

These appear to be recovered memories.  I wonder if that is part of the issue for why prosecutors didn’t follow through.

And if there are all these recordings of the father confessing the abuse, surely that would be better than a secondhand report from anyone else, even a bishop.  I really want to hear these recordings. I wonder if they are like the McKenna Denson recording where she stated he confessed to raping her, etc when he did no such thing…though in Denson case I believe it was an intentional scam based on her previous behaviour and all of her antics after it went public and in no way do I believe this is in any way a scam.  There are also the misrepresentations in the lawsuit complaint by the lawyer of what was said in trial of Leizza Adams by the witnesses.  Then there is Lynn Packer who concluded the opposite of what his “witnesses” actually said.  Unfortunately our desire to hear something may cause us to see something that isn’t there.

There are enough cases out there where even records, written or audio, are misinterpreted, I want to hear them myself.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Could that not lead to a " fruit of the poisonous tree " problem with other evidence ?

I was curious about that in a much older thread and while searching, I came across a paper that discussed it.  I don't remember which thread it was but here is the paper https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=law_lawreview.

In section 2, it references a few cases:

  • Commonwealth v. Fewell (in Pennsylvania) - A woman confessed to her psychiatrist that she murdered her child.  The psychiatrist told the police who confronted her and she confessed to the police.
  • State v. Smith (in New Jersey) - A psychiatric patient confessed to aggravated assault and someone from the clinic anomalously informed the police.
  • Walstad v. State (in Alaska) - A man revealed sexual abuse to his minister (who was also a therapist).  The minister informed the police.
  • Nickel v. Hannigan (in Kansas) - A man revealed to his lawyer that he killed a woman.  The lawyer informed the police.

In all of those cases, it was ruled that even though the original communication was privileged, the evidence that the police found after being told of the crime was not tainted by the breach in privilege.  It looks like that as long as the police didn't gain knowledge of the confession through invalid means, they may act on it to gather further evidence.  Each state is different, though, so maybe Idaho would have problems.

Link to comment

What exactly is Rytting’s role in the case…there seems to be both a personal and a professional side and the reporter seems to be conveying that the victim thought he was there personally to help her…and yet the victim brings an advocate to the meeting and makes recordings?

It is confusing to me.  I would like to see a timeline of what happened from when her meteorites started to surface.

Quote

While grappling with these memories, Chelsea met a Mormon friend she came to trust and with whom she shared these unsettling remembrances. Her new friend told her that her father, Paul Rytting, was a high church official who often dealt with sexual abuse complaints and suggested Chelsea contact him.

Unbeknownst to Chelsea, who believed Rytting’s main responsibility was to aid victims….

After meeting Rytting’s daughter, Chelsea travelled with her to Salt Lake City and met Paul Rytting while staying at the family home.

At that time, Chelsea didn’t feel ready to discuss her memories and kept them to herself, she said. But she eventually told her mother. And when Lorraine Goodrich confronted her husband in their Idaho home, in July of 2015, John confirmed becoming aroused while around his daughter -- but denied any direct sexual contact, according to recordings of the conversations.

 

Did she tell her friend about the memories or kept them to herself?  There seems to be a contradiction here.  Maybe she shared she had been abused with her friend, but not the details?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...