Another abuse report…John Goodrich

[Calm]

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.

“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.

 

Was this shared in a meeting only with Rytting or was Bishop Miller in the meeting with Rytting, the victim, the mother and her advocate?  I would really like to know the context as it seems very odd that the bishop,would be sharing confession details in a meeting about why he couldn’t share confession details.

[Calm]

I am listening to the recording of Rytting offering money.  Initially it was $90,000 and in the recording it is $300,000 for the purpose of helping her and her mother get some stability (assuming this is meant through therapy, but he expresses concern about how they intend to spend it, which appears to me he is trying to educate them about the actual value of what they are getting and being wise about planning ahead of time how to spend it because he uses the example of them not paying their lawyers with it).  Not much info besides the dollar amount and the statement the amount of the money was to help her and her mother…iow, compassion.  I totally get why some would say this is the Church trying to make the best of having to pay out for damages, one can choose to believe the Church leadership cared about the two women or just wanted the case to go away.  This is a friend of Rytting’s daughter, who he had in his home staying before he was engaged in his professional status.  I can see he might be more personally involved in this case and might have pushed for more pastoral care in the settlement amount.

https://assets.apnews.com/38/24/1341c0cb2025f2237c96dc07e35c/mormon-sex-abuseoffer-apa346155.mp3

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Rytting says in the second recording he is asking for the destruction of the recordings in ten days because he would have no way to defend himself, since he did not have his own recordings, if the attorney of the victim chose to take a soundbite from the recording that misrepresented the actual full conversation.  It sounds like the victim understands the issue, but apparently did not destroy them anyway (or at least did not insist her advocate do so as those were the ones given to the reporter) and now the AP reporter is using the recordings apparently as Rytting was concerned with by releasing what he wants and refusing to share them.

PS:  there is the recording that has the picture attached and then two other recordings which appear to be each half of the larger recording.  Very disappointing as I thought there was more….

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

The recording on floodlit suggests the Church is offering the larger amount for compassion, to help the victim and her mother get stability imo.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, awyatt said:

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.

And let’s hope the law doesn’t get changed because it appears research is showing the mandatory laws aren’t helping and could be hurting.

https://publicsquaremag.org/politics-law/legal/a-misguided-crusade-how-mandatory-reporting-fails-our-children/

(I posted this in another thread about the privilege to avoid cluttering this one)

[Calm]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

I wonder if his other recorded confessions amounted to the same as the one they actually reported.****. If there was a more egregious crime confessed to, why wouldn’t it have been shared to back up the claims?  Instead we get left with him saying ‘I thought about it, I got in your bed to do it, but I didn’t act on the temptation’.  Were the rest of his confessions the same?  If so, I can see why the prosecutor failed to act on it given the only other contradicting testimony would come from the victim whose memories were recovered…how exactly is not described, did they come back spontaneously only as is suggested by the article, or was there repressed memory therapy involved…which leaves the victim wide open to accusations of being led to imagine the abuse.

Quote

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 church 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.”

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-9c301f750725c0f06344f948690caf16

**** added:  it looks like they pretty much were just saying he was aroused, but never went very far doing anything about it

Quote

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.

So the confessions contradict her memories and it probably comes down to which is more credible. 
 

If her memories are “recovered memories” (in quotes because recovered memories are sometimes implanted by suggestion, not actual events), which seems implied but not explicitly stated, that could have been a big issue for the prosecutor.

 

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.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Stupid misreading…nvm

Edited December 4, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

The recording on floodlit suggests the Church is offering the larger amount for compassion, to help the victim and her mother get stability imo.

I wonder how often the Church does this sort of thing to help.  Out of a sense of moral duty in the absence of a legal one.  

And yet Ms. Goodrich burned the Church.  Bummer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

I wonder if the talk about having the bishop testify wasn't over what was confessed but more as a character witness.  In one of the articles, it mentioned that the prosecutor felt that some things might prejudice the jurors so maybe they felt that the bishop could help strengthen their argument or hurt the abuser's argument (without going into any detail about the confession).

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how often the Church does this sort of thing to help.  Out of a sense of moral duty in the absence of a legal one.  

And yet Ms. Goodrich burned the Church.  Bummer.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was her advocate technically who turned the recordings over.  He was not bound by the confidentiality laws.

Quote

All the conversations with Rytting, Chelsea, Lorraine, and Alberdi were recorded, and provided by Alberdi to The Associated Press.

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

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. 

“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.”

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-9c301f750725c0f06344f948690caf16

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  That seems somewhat unusual.

Quote

Chelsea had stayed at his home earlier as she was a friend of his daughter.  That may be how he got involved.  Perhaps the Church felt it would be easier for Chelsea to talk to him given the prior relationships. 
 

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….

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.

 

[helix]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was her advocate technically who turned the recordings over.  He was not bound by the confidentiality laws.

But the NDA was to destroy recordings, was it not? And the records were not destroyed, as evidence of us having the recordings?

In either case, I've seen this game before. Jeremy Runnels, of CES Letter fame, signed an agreement that he wouldn't leak the contents of his church membership council. Yet his excommunication video showed up on the internet. How? How can that be if he agreed not to do it?

Jeremy gave the recording to his friend and told through obvious hints to leak it. So the friend went to the exmormon subreddit's moderators and said that John Runnels asked him to leak the information in his behalf. Then a disgrunted /r/exmormon moderator leaked all the modmails, revealing the plan. So he cleverly back-doored the process, right? No....

This is one of the reasons why attorneys want all records and evidence destroyed in exchange for something valuable to the other party. With evidence destroyed, a party friendly to the accuser can't just resurrect a case that was already settled to be dead. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

There is also a good chance they expected the father to deny he had any physical sexual contact with his daughter in his confession since that was apparently his consistent claim in all in recorded confessions.  
 

Quote

 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.

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, helix said:

But the NDA was to destroy recordings, was it not? And the records were not destroyed, as evidence of us having the recordings?

They were his recordings, he did not agree to destroy them.  No other info is shared about them.  I know it was exclusive and the reporter isn’t sharing from a private conversation.  Maybe Smac or someone else who sounds not completely like a random onlooker can try his luck at getting the reporter to share and then can report on his luck to confirm or rebut this anecdote.  Hopefully another reporter gets on to Alberdi and we find out some of the details.

I need to go back and see if the words were “the recordings” or “their…”.  Could have been unintentional, they could have told him to destroy them back then and he didn’t and only recently informed them with the recent news that he hadn’t and they decided to act on it or he might have acted on it after 8 years because of the news unknown to the two others but they went along with it once the reporter showed up, or an intentional end run by all three.

It is weird there is nothing about “unbeknownst to Chelsea and Lorraine” or “while initially reluctant to talk about the recordings because they had promised they would be destroyed…” or something like that…

There may have been two sets of recordings and they destroyed their own ….or Rytting may have assumed the one recording was done at the instigation of Chelsea, so he assumed they belonged to her.  And perhaps in making the agreement, Chelsea and her mother did not appraise him of the fact those recordings belonged to Alberdi, not them.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

I checked.  She had acknowledged that recordings were made and she agreed to destroy them.  There was no response from her it wasn’t her decision, there were two sets, or from Alberdi he wasn’t part of the settlement, he wasn’t going to destroy his tapes, neener, neener, neener….

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-9c301f750725c0f06344f948690caf16

Edited December 5, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/3/2023 at 11:58 PM, Calm said:

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.

Wow.  Just saw an update on this case, and it's . . . troubling:

Williamsburg judge dismisses sexual assault charges against former Mormon bishop

Quote

A Williamsburg Circuit Court judge has dismissed all charges against a former Mormon bishop who had been accused of sexually assaulting his daughter on a field trip to the historic area 27 years ago.

Judge Holly Smith granted a defense motion to dismiss the case “with prejudice,” meaning the charges cannot be brought back.

John Earl Goodrich, 66, a practicing dentist in Idaho, was indicted in January 2024 on charges of rape, forcible sodomy and two counts of aggravated sexual battery by a parent.

According to court records filed in Williamsburg-James City County Circuit Court, his daughter went to the Williamsburg Police Department in October 2019, when she was 34.

Indictments filed in the case charged Goodrich with sexually assaulting his daughter in Williamsburg in June 1999. She would have been 13 at the time.

Hearing transcripts in the case referenced the daughter’s contention that the assault took place in a Williamsburg hotel room.

Williamsburg-James City County Commonwealth’s Attorney Nate Green has said the woman told police that the assault took place during an American history field trip that included stops in Washington, D.C., Williamsburg and James City County.

In January 2024, more than four years after her 2019 complaint, a Williamsburg grand jury indicted Goodrich on the four felony counts.

Shortly thereafter, The Associated Press identified the woman — with her permission — as Goodrich’s daughter, Chelsea Goodrich, who is now 40 and lives in Idaho.

So this appears to be the same accused, same accuser.

Quote

Though the Daily Press and The Virginian-Pilot typically do not name sexual assault victims, exceptions can be made in cases in which victims agree to be publicly identified.

John Goodrich faced up to two life sentences plus 40 years if convicted on the charges. But the case was never set for trial, with the two sides still sparring in recent months over evidence-sharing issues.

On May 12, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, Chesterfield Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Sarah E. Wright, asked Smith to dismiss the case.

“After carefully considering all the evidence available to the Commonwealth, it has been determined that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden should these matters proceed to trial,” Wright wrote in a motion.

Wright asked for a dismissal “without prejudice,” which would allow the case to be resurrected if the prosecution’s case could be strengthened at a later date.

Two days later, on May 14, Goodrich’s attorney, Steven Benjamin of Richmond, filed an extensive motion that the case be dismissed permanently.

This is the troubling part:

Quote

Benjamin’s filing was 273 pages — a 47-page motion and 226 pages of exhibits. The motion asserts that Chelsea Goodrich’s stories shifted, and that she committed fraud and obstruction along the way in bringing the charges.

The motion asserts that beginning in 2015, John Goodrich’s then-wife, Lorraine Goodrich, conspired with her daughter to “devise a fraudulent scheme” against the dentist.

The motion asserts that the scheme was designed to “exact … the entirety of the marital assets” from John Goodrich, to defraud the Church of Latter-day Saints and to “monetize” the story by writing a book about the experience.

The motion includes allegations of altered emails and voice recordings. It also references the idea that Chelsea Goodrich had a “flashback of memory” that she said allowed her to regain a repressed memory of what happened to her as a teen in 1999.

Benjamin’s motion asserts that bringing back memories in such a fashion “is inconsistent with decades of cognitive neuroscience, is not how memory works, and is contradicted by years of Chelsea’s own testimony and written complaints.”

"[A] 47-page motion and 226 pages of exhibits."

A motion apparently detailing allegations of shifting stories, fraud (against, inter alia, the Church) , obstruction, collusion, altered evidence, "repressed memories," and so on.

A motion filed after the prosecutor had concluded "that the Commonwealth would be unable to meet its burden should these matters proceed to trial."

A motion that was apparently sufficient to persuade the judge to dismiss the case permanently ("with prejudice") rather than allow it to be refiled in the future "if the prosecution’s case could be strengthened at a later date."

I sure would be interested in reading that motion.  There is no mention of the prosecution disputing it. 

Quote

When Chelsea Goodrich learned in May that the Chesterfield prosecutor was asking the judge to dismiss the case, she filed a written opposition and “request to be heard.”

Among other things, Goodrich said she learned of the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss only after it was filed May 12.

She cited a Virginia law that requires prosecutors to consult with crime victims to obtain their views on a case’s disposition — including motions to dismiss.

“This is particularly true where, as here, the prosecution involves alleged sexual offenses committed by a parent against a child, and where dismissal would foreclose the Commonwealth’s present effort to hold the Defendant accountable.”

Also in the filing, Chelsea Goodrich maintained that she was prepared to testify and that “the evidence supporting the charges remains.”

Though Chelsea Goodrich spoke with the prosecutor about the matter May 19 — asking her to back away from her motion to dismiss — Goodrich said her views “did not appear to be substantially considered.”

Following an hourlong hearing May 26, Smith not only ruled that she was dismissing the case, but that she was barring it from being brought back.

On Friday, Benjamin said that outcome was correct.

“We commend the Court and the Special Prosecutor for their thorough, meticulous, and objective review of the facts and circumstances of this case,” he said in a written statement. “The fact that the charges were dismissed with prejudice should receive at least the same amount of attention as the arrest.”

And yet it won't receive the same amount of attention.  

Quote

He added, “Dr. Goodrich vehemently maintains his innocence.”

Wright could not be reached for comment.

I wonder if Floodlit will update its entry about Dr. Goodrich.  I just submitted the link to the above story.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

wonder if Floodlit will update its entry about Dr. Goodrich.  I just submitted the link to the above story.

 

From awful to worse. How does anyone come out of this feeling like justice has been served? The evidence against the accuser and her mother must be overwhelming, so what now?

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

From awful to worse. How does anyone come out of this feeling like justice has been served?

I think we need to let this one go.  We'll never really know for sure either way.

5 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

The evidence against the accuser and her mother must be overwhelming, so what now?

I'd like to see the evidence before rendering a decision.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

like to see the evidence before rendering a decision.

Will that be made accessible eventually?

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Will that be made accessible eventually?

I doubt it.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to see the evidence before rendering a decisio

Good point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I doubt it.

Too bad. 

[Calm]

Reread a bit of the thread.  Has forgotten the details.  It looks like the claims were primarily founded on recordings of the father allegedly confessing in addition to her recovered memories.

Quote

 

The motion includes allegations of altered emails and voice recordings. 

So was the lawyer claiming they altered them to make it sound like he was confessing when he wasn’t?  Alteration of emails would be easier to prove if he kept his own.   If I were a judge and saw proof of altering emails and the defendant claimed the recordings were altered as well, I would likely believe them.  But maybe they went further and got them examined by experts who could tell if there was alteration even if they might not be able to testify to what was on them originally.  
 

Quote

I doubt it.

Is this not a public case?  I always assume the public nature meant most things were made public knowledge.  Never been involved though or researched, so don’t know the rules.  

Edited June 20 by Calm

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this not a public case?  I always assume the public nature meant most things were made public knowledge.  Never been involved though or researched, so don’t know the rules.  

It's a public record, so it cab accessed and downloaded, but someone with an account in that state needs to do it.

[webbles]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a public record, so it cab accessed and downloaded, but someone with an account in that state needs to do it.

I think the motion might be sealed.  I found the case over at the Virginia's state court site (there are 4 case numbers CR24000020-00, CR24000021-00, CR24000022-00, CR24000023-00) and a few days before the motion to dismiss request is made, there is a motion to seal the motion to dismiss.  To see it, go to https://eapps.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.jsp, select the Williamsburg Circuit Court, enter "Goodrich, John" and search by name.