Another abuse report…John Goodrich

[Calm]

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 December 4, 2023 by Calm

[sunstoned]

The AP article is being reposted and is trending on Reddit.

[MustardSeed]

Hard read. 
 

[Tacenda]

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. 

 

[awyatt]

Hard topic.

Bishops (and, by extension, the Church) are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If a state has a clergy-penitent privilege in place and the bishop reports what is said during a confession, then the Church is open to a lawsuit by the confessor. However, if the bishop says nothing and someone continues to be hurt by the confessor, then the Church is open to a lawsuit by the injured.

You see a variation of this as the basis for many a TV drama--a "bad person" (almost exclusively a man) makes a confession to a doctor or therapist and then the bad person keeps doing bad things. The police, investigating the bad things, come to the doctor or therapist who says "you know I cannot discuss this with you because of doctor-client privilege." The police go away and have to find a different way to get the bad person. Nobody ever says the doctor or therapist is bad (or worse) than the bad person because everyone accepts doctor-client privilege as a real thing.

However, if it happens in a religious context, it is the Church who is always portrayed as "covering up" the bad behavior. Always. That is because we live in a society which, increasingly, devalues what religion does for the penitent. We increasingly see the clergy-penitent privilege as a thing not to be ultimately valued.

The Church doesn't "cover up" abuse in these cases, it tries to make sure that the bishop as the front-line face of the Church abides by what the law requires. I guarantee that the Church counsels the bishop to try to get the confessor to talk with authorities. But if the person refuses to do so, the law ties the hands of the bishop and the Church.

The problem isn't the Church. The problem is the law. If people don't want the Church to abide by the law, then change the law. But don't blame the Church for abiding by what the law says should be done.

<Going back into lurk mode.>

 

[webbles]

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.

[webbles]

Deseret News has a statement from the church - https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/3/23986797/idaho-abuse-case-latter-day-saints-church-responds-to-ap-story

[webbles]

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?

[Diamondhands69]

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

 

[webbles]

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.

[Buckeye]

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. 

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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

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.

 

[helix]

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 December 4, 2023 by helix
Spelling...

[helix]

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 December 4, 2023 by helix

[webbles]

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.

[helix]

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 December 4, 2023 by helix

[Tacenda]

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.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Okay, let's break this down a bit:

Quote

Paul Rytting listened as a woman, voice quavering, told him her story.

Mr. Rytting is an attorney and currently the director of who works for the Church's "Risk Management Division."

Quote

When she was a child, her father, a former bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had routinely slipped into bed with her while he was aroused, she said.

If true, these allegations are horrendous, and entirely antithetical to the doctrines and teachings of the Church.  "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  (Matt 18:6.)

Quote

It was March 2017 and Rytting offered his sympathies as 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich spoke.

As with many of these cases, the allegations are coming to light many years after the purported instances of abuse.  This can create some legal difficulties.  Statutes of limitations, recollections fade, physical/forensic evidence is often long gone, witnesses die or move away, etc.

Quote

A Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division, Rytting had spent about 15 years protecting the organization, widely known as the Mormon church, from costly claims, including sexual abuse lawsuits.

Yes.  That is an entirely legitimate pursuit.

Quote

Rytting had flown into Hailey, Idaho, that morning from Salt Lake City, where the church is based, to meet in person with Chelsea and her mother, Lorraine.

Hmm.  That seems somewhat unusual.

Quote

After a quick prayer, he introduced himself and said he was there “to look into” Chelsea’s “tragic and horrendous” story.

Chelsea and Lorraine had come to the meeting with one clear request: Would the church allow a local Idaho bishop, which in the Mormon church is akin to a Catholic priest, to testify at John Goodrich’s trial?  Bishop Michael Miller, who accompanied Rytting to the meeting, had heard a spiritual confession from Chelsea’s father shortly before John Goodrich was arrested on charges of sexually abusing her.

So the request from Ms. Goodrich was for the Church to disregard the Clergy-Penitent Privilege.  If this story was about Ms. Goodrich approaching an attorney who had previously represented her father and asking him (the attorney) to "testify at John Goodrich's trial," well, this wouldn't be a story at all.  Nobody is looking to undermine the Attorney-Client privilege, or to vilify attorneys and law firms who are bound to follow it.

It appears that Idaho has codified this privilege as both a statute and as a rule of evidence.

The statute:

Quote

(3)  A clergyman or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs.

The key bit: "A clergyman or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him..."

The rule of evidence:

Quote

Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 505. Religious Privilege.

(a)  Definitions. As used in this rule:

(1)  Clergyman. A "Clergyman" is a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be a clergyman by the person consulting.(2)  Confidential communication. A communication is "confidential" if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(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.

(c)  Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, or for the person by the person's lawyer, the guardian or conservator, or by the personal representative if that person is deceased. The clergyman at the time of the communication may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the person. The authority of the clergyman to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The key bit: "A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman..."

The Privilege belongs to John Goodrich.  Even if the Church were willing to have Bishop Miller "to testify at John Goodrich’s trial," such willingness would be futile because the court would not - could not - allow such testimony.

It is rather astounding that the "journalists" do not address this issue in the story.  Or not.  Noting this issue would eviscerate the story.  There would likely be no article at all, in fact.

Back to the article:

Quote

While the details of his confession remain private, the church swiftly excommunicated Goodrich.

Both of which courses of action (not divulging the confession, excommunicating Goodrich) were manifestly appropriate and correct.

Quote

Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. 

What utter bilge.  There is no "secret."  The allegations are a matter of public record, and were public well before the Goodrichs met with Mr. Rytting.

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.

More bilge.  The court would have disallowed such testimony, regardless of what the Church wanted to do or not do.

Quote

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.

I suspect the prosecutors did not drop the charges based on Miller not testifying, as the court would never have allowed such testimony in the first place.  The prosecutors must have known this, and apparently failed to press charges for other reasons.

Quote

Rytting would also offer hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for a confidentiality agreement and a pledge by Chelsea and Lorraine to destroy their recordings of the meetings, which they had made at the recommendation of an attorney and with Rytting's knowledge.

This is kind of weird.  

Quote

Today, John Goodrich, who did not respond to the AP’s questions, is a free man, practicing dentistry in Idaho.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

Quote

“Going into this meeting with Rytting, I felt like it would be very clear, once everything’s laid out that, look, this is not something that we want to cover up,” said Eric Alberdi, a church member who attended the meetings as Chelsea’s advocate and also made recordings, which he shared with the AP.

Again, the allegations were already a matter of public record.  The issue here was whether the bishop could offer testimony against Mr. Goodrich.  The law in Idaho says that the bishop could not offer such testimony.  The prosecutors almost certainly never relied on having such testimony in their prosecution of Mr. Goodrich, and instead declined to pursue charges due to other factors.

Quote

“This is something that we want to uncover for a number of reasons, so that John … doesn’t do this again. So that Chelsea can move forward,” said Alberdi, who was not bound by the confidentiality agreement and who has since left the church. “You know, covering this up did not make any sense.”

There was no "coverup."  If a criminal defense attorney refuses to testify about what his client has said, that is not a "coverup."  It is following the law pertaining to privileged communications.  The same can and must be said here.

Quote

In a statement to the AP, the church said “the abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable," and that John Goodrich, following his excommunication, "has not been readmitted to church membership.”

Alberdi's recordings provide an unprecedented record of the steps the church normally takes behind closed doors to keep allegations of child sex abuse secret – steps that can leave predators free and children at risk.

Bilge.  There was no "secret" here.  The allegations are a matter of public record.

Quote

“How many people can know the truth and choose to pretend they don’t and leave others at risk of the same abuse and they know it and they just don’t care?” Lorraine Goodrich said. “I don’t understand that. I’ll never understand that.”

This is substantially false and unfair.  Nobody in the picture answers to the description of "know{ing} the truth and choos{ing} to pretend they don't."  The same goes for the accusation that people in the Church "just don't care."  

None of this stuff would be getting published if the recipient of the communication was a lawyer or doctor.

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.

I suspect there's more to the story.  Recorded admissions would be pretty damning.

Also, this statement does not make sense to me: "John Goodrich admitted that during a recorded conversation, obtained by the AP, with Chelsea, Lorraine and one of Chelsea’s brothers."  Goodrich admitted . . . what?

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, at about that time he was deeply involved in defending the church in a highly publicized West Virginia child sex abuse lawsuit. Several Mormon families had accused the church of allowing a Mormon sex abuser, Christopher Michael Jensen, to babysit for their children, whom he allegedly abused. Jensen was sentenced to serve 35 to 75 years in prison after he was found guilty of abusing two of the children.

As revealed by the AP last year, Rytting made sworn statements in that case – which were sealed by a judge and obtained by the AP -- describing the management of the secretive church Helpline, a phone number set up by the church for bishops to report instances of child sex abuse. Church officials say that they don’t keep any records of the reports to the Helpline.

Rytting also revealed the lengths to which the church goes to ensure confidentiality for Mormon perpetrators who make spiritual confessions.

“Disciplinary proceedings are subject to the highest confidentiality possible,” Rytting said in one affidavit. “If members had any concerns that their disciplinary files could be read by a secular judge or attorneys or be presented to a jury as evidence in a public trial, their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised.”

Rytting did not respond to telephone calls or an email with a list of questions. In its statement the church noted that Goodrich's “communications with his bishop were protected by Idaho state law. Only the perpetrator could release the bishop from his obligation under the clergy penitent privilege and he refused to do so.”

"'Only the perpetrator could release the bishop from his obligation under the clergy penitent privilege and he refused to do so.'"

Talk about burying the lede...

Quote

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.

In one recorded conversation with Chelsea and Lorraine, he blamed the devil for his decision to climb into bed with his 13-year-old daughter after hearing sexual activity in an adjoining hotel room during the trip to Washington.

“The adversary I’m sure worked on me,” he said, using a Mormon term for Satan. “And that’s when it was going through my mind when I climbed in bed with Chelsea and was really aroused … with the intent of spooning and snuggling you but I didn’t.”

With his family and marriage in turmoil, John revealed details of his relationship with Chelsea to visiting relatives, according to a written statement from the relatives which was ultimately submitted to authorities. They urged him to go to the police. When John said he’d rather talk with a Mormon bishop, the Goodrich relatives drove him to Miller’s home, where John made his confession.

Less than a year later, on Sept. 1, 2016, Chelsea and her mother met with Mountain Home police and played the recordings of their conversations with John. The next day, after a nearly two-hour interview at police headquarters, officers arrested him.

“Nothing happened,” John protested, as police cuffed him during a video interview obtained by the AP.

“I’m not ashamed of anything.”

While tragic, this sort of progression of events is nothing new.  Allegations of abuse are often very difficult to prove.  No conspiracies or "coverups" in view.

Quote

It was then that Chelsea decided to enlist Rytting’s help and began corresponding with him by email to persuade him to allow Miller to testify against her father.

Chelsea and Lorraine also let Rytting know that church officials may have known about John Goodrich and his daughter for years. John told them, in conversations that were also recorded, that he’d “repented” details of his relationship with Chelsea to several local church leaders. Rytting told them that church leaders said they did not recall hearing any such confessions.

Again, nothing new or unusual here.  The Clergy-Penitent Privilege is every bit legitimate as the Attorney-Client privilege.

Quote

As detectives investigated the new allegations, John Goodrich, who was still facing charges in Chelsea's case, called the woman at least four times, in conversations she recorded and which the AP obtained. In these conversations, Goodrich asked her to lie to police while admitting he drugged her even as he tried to minimize his actions and repeatedly apologized.

“It was fun as heck, but it was wrong,” he said in a recorded conversation. “Just out of principle it was wrong, and I’m just mad as hell at myself.”

In July 2017, prosecutors dropped charges against John Goodrich related to Chelsea's allegations.

Six months later, a prosecutor in a neighboring county was crafting a plea deal in which he again would escape sex crime charges.

In the end, John Goodrich pleaded guilty to distribution of a controlled substance, Halcion, and a judge sentenced him to 90 days in jail and three years of probation.

Nothing new or unusual here, except that this is being reported as "news."

And none of this has anything to do with the Church.

Quote

At the initial meeting with Chelsea and Lorraine, Rytting said the clergy-penitent privilege law made it next to impossible for Miller to testify against John Goodrich. Now, four months later, he was back in Hailey with an offer.

Much had changed for Lorraine and Chelsea in the meantime. They’d begun to feel ostracized by the Mormon community. Miller’s wife had even removed them from a local church community “sisters” email list, they told Rytting.

Miller had been an advocate for Chelsea.

Boy, this is a poorly-written article.  Which "Miller" is being referenced as having been "an advocate for Chelsea?"  The bishop or his wife?

Quote

During the first meeting with Rytting, Miller said John Goodrich, before his excommunication, had tried to backtrack on what he’d told Miller in confession.

What does "{d}uring the first meeting with Rytting" mean?  Who is meeting with whom?  Who is in attendance?

This sounds like the bishop (Miller) was divulging portions of his communications with John Goodrich.

Quote

“John told me one thing, and then kind of toned it way down to the stake president,” said Miller, referring to a higher-ranking church official who oversees several local jurisdictions. “He told the stake president, ‘Well, that’s not a big deal.’ I go, ‘Yeah, it’s a big deal.’”

“So we know he’s lying, and we know he’s lying at every level,” Rytting responded.

Reached by phone by the AP, Miller refused to discuss details. “It’s clergy privilege,” he said. “If I say anything, (John Goodrich) can sue me for millions of dollars.”

So Mr. Rytting and Miller both said these things to the Goodrichs?  That seems kind of weird.

Quote

With Rytting in town again, Lorraine and Chelsea first made it clear that they were devastated the prosecutor had dropped the criminal case, according to the recordings.

“(The prosecutor) said ‘Too bad the bishop couldn’t testify,’” Lorraine told Rytting.

Rytting sounded surprised. He had not known coming into the meeting that the case was dropped, he said. He told them that the church perhaps could reach out to the prosecutor to help get things restarted.

“The message to this prosecutor is, you’ve got several pretty clear-cut instances where a predator, a sexual predator, has admitted,” Rytting said. “And then the victims have provided information. But you don’t feel any need to protect the general public?”

Huh.  So Mr. Rytting was offering to get involved with the prosecutors?  To encourage them to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Goodrich, apparently using evidence other than Clergy-Penitent communications?  And he was doing this in his capacity as the head of "Risk Management" for the Church?  That seems . . . weird.

Quote

“She did say that if the bishop could come forward and tell, then we would have had a case. But there’s nothing,” Lorraine repeated.

The prosecutor, Jessica Kuehn, now works for the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office and did not respond to a request for comment. The AP couldn’t determine if the church ever followed up with her about the case.

Not quite buying this.  I doubt a prosecutor would say this.

Quote

About an hour into the meeting, Rytting changed the subject abruptly.

“Well, should we talk about why I’m here?” Rytting asked. “I have authorization up to $300,000.”

The offer stunned Chelsea and Lorraine. Months earlier, Rytting told them by email that the church was prepared to pay them $90,000 - an offer the women were considering.

The payment would be made on the condition that Chelsea and her mother sign an agreement in which they promised never to use Chelsea’s story as a basis for a lawsuit against the church – and that they never acknowledge the existence of the settlement.

And there was another key provision: “Second paragraph, I’ll be interested in your response,” Rytting said, while reviewing the document with them.

“The recommendation is that you acknowledge that there’s been some recordings made of all of our communications and that you agreed to destroy those recordings within 10 days of signing this,” he said.

So the Church was willing to pay $300K to preemptively settle a lawsuit that hadn't even been filed yet.  

And the Goodrichs apparently declined.  Well, okay.  I guess they can try their luck with litigation.  I doubt they'll succeed.

Meanwhile, they've created a pretty bad precedent.  The Church may, in the future, find such preemptive settlement overtures too risky or not worthwhile.  This may be particularly so where, as here, the Church had little risk of being found liable for Mr. Goodrich's purported misconduct.

Quote

Nondisclosure agreements – or NDAs, as they are commonly known - have been used frequently by the Mormon church and other organizations, including the Catholic Church, as well as individuals, to keep sex abuse allegations secret. In addition to her settlement with the church, Chelsea also settled a lawsuit against her father.

What eye-rolling nonsense this is.  The "sex abuse allegations" were a matter of public record.  And she has settled her suit against her father.  So all this hue and cry is . . . for what?

Quote

Still, at their final meeting, Rytting assured Chelsea and Lorraine that church officials denied hearing John Goodrich confess previously to abusing his daughter, a claim the church backed in its statement to the AP. He urged them to accept the funds the church was offering and sign the nondisclosure agreement promising they would never sue the church.

And the Church is being . . . faulted for this? 

Quote

“When John Goodrich engaged in abuse or any other criminal or sexual misconduct, he was acting in an individual capacity and NOT as an agent of the Church,” Rytting wrote, ignoring the fact that Goodrich was a bishop at the time. “Accordingly, any damages arising from such misconduct will be apportioned to Mr. Goodrich and not to the Church.”

There is no good faith argument for the proposition that Mr. Goodrich was acting "as an agent of the Church" when he purportedly engaged in misconduct.

Quote

Chelsea and Lorraine, distanced from their family and community, and struggling financially, accepted this assessment and signed the agreement, which did not prevent Chelsea from telling her story.

Um, what?  From earlier in the article: "The payment would be made on the condition that Chelsea and her mother sign an agreement in which they promised never to use Chelsea’s story as a basis for a lawsuit against the church – and that they never acknowledge the existence of the settlement."

So did Chelsea violate the NDA?  If so, did she do so with the expectation that the Church would let it slide?

Quote

Earlier this year, Chelsea decided to share it with the AP.

She had tried going to the church for help. She’d tried the criminal justice system.

And yet nobody in this story is attempting to vilify the criminal justice system.

Quote

But John was free with access to children through his family and dental practice.

“Right now, my main concern continues to be other children,” she said.

Yeesh.

Anyway, on to the Church's statement: Church responds to AP story detailing 2015 Idaho abuse case

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded Sunday night to an Associated Press story that detailed allegations about a former church member who allegedly sexually abused his daughter.

The church swiftly excommunicated John Goodrich in 2015 after he allegedly confessed to a bishop in Mountain Home, Idaho, that he had sexually abused his daughter more than 20 years earlier.

Goodrich was arrested in 2016 and charged with lewdness, but a prosecutor asked a judge nearly a year later to dismiss the charge for lack of evidence.

"More than 20 years earlier."

I wonder if there was a statute of limitations issue.

Quote

On Sunday night, the Associated Press published a story that included information from recordings of a church representative talking to Goodrich’s daughter about reaching a settlement with the church when she was an adult. The story did not say why the church offered a settlement, but the story claimed it was evidence the church was trying to cover up the abuse.

The church strongly denied the allegation that it attempted to keep the abuse case a secret.

The story noted that the settlement, which included a nondisclosure agreement about the amount of the settlement and recordings made of church officials discussing it, did not preclude the survivor from telling her story.

“In 2017, the church agreed to settle a civil claim made by the survivor,” the church statement said.“ Nothing in the agreement kept her from talking about the abuse she suffered or the facts of the case itself with anyone. Both parties mutually agreed not to disclose the financial terms of the settlement.”

And yet here we are, with Ms. Goodrich having apparently violated the agreement.

Quote

“He has not been readmitted to church membership,” the church statement said. “Claims that he confessed to a bishop prior to 2015 are false.”

The survivor and her mother also claimed in the story that the prosecutor abandoned the case against Goodrich because the Latter-day Saint bishop refused to testify. The church said the bishop was precluded from testifying under Idaho law, which protects clergy-penitent communications.

A vital point the "journalists" seemed to want to obscure.

Quote

“Only (Goodrich) could release the bishop from his obligation under the clergy-penitent privilege, and he refused to do so,” the church statement said. “The bishop was subpoenaed to testify in this case, but prosecutors released the subpoena, and he was not recalled to testify. The church had no role in influencing the prosecuting attorney to dismiss the criminal case. Questions about the status of the criminal case should be directed to local prosecutors.”

Huh.  I am surprised that the prosecutor issued a subpoena.  

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.

“With his family and marriage in turmoil, John revealed details of his relationship with (his daughter) to visiting relatives, according to a written statement from the relatives which was ultimately submitted to authorities. They urged him to go to the police.”

Goodrich said he’d rather talk to his bishop, so relatives drove him to the home of his bishop, Michael Miller.

The AP contacted Miller by phone, but he declined to discuss details. “It’s clergy privilege,” he told the AP. “If I say anything, (John Goodrich) can sue me for millions of dollars.”

From the AP story: "John revealed details of his relationship with (his daughter) to visiting relatives."  And yet the prosecutor still did not prosecute.

Quote

Below is the entire statement released Sunday by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

The abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse. Our hearts break for this survivor and all survivors of abuse.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints terminated the perpetrator’s membership eight years ago, in October 2015, when it learned of the abuse. He has not been readmitted to church membership. Claims that he confessed to a bishop prior to 2015 are false.

His communications with his bishop were protected by Idaho state law. Only the perpetrator could release the bishop from his obligation under the clergy penitent privilege and he refused to do so. The bishop was subpoenaed to testify in this case, but prosecutors released the subpoena, and he was not recalled to testify. The church had no role in influencing the prosecuting attorney to dismiss the criminal case. Questions about the status of the criminal case should be directed to local prosecutors.

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. Both parties mutually agreed not to disclose the financial terms of the settlement.

I think it's odd that the Church's settlement agreement did not prevent Ms. Goodrich "from talking about the abuse she suffered or the facts of the case itself with anyone."  This rather undercuts the notion that the Church was trying to keep things "secret."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

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

[webbles]

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.

[blackstrap]

50 minutes ago, webbles said:

the clergy's testimony would not be admissible.

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

[Calm]

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 December 4, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

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.

[Calm]

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?

[Calm]

Some of the recordings are online, though apparently the AP reporter has exclusive rights to all of them and he is not sharing from what I have heard.

https://floodlit.org/a/a866/