Former Latter-day Saint bishop charged with sexual abuse of teenager (18-19 years ago)

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I am surmising.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you explain what is causing you to surmise that conclusion?  (I'm trying to understand what your surmise is built on better)

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s so interesting how differently we approach these cases- as a lawyer, it’s all about proving things first,  and me as a therapist, my first reaction is empathy.  
 

Can you imagine a marriage between a lawyer and a therapist? That would be  - not fun. 

I wonder if the issue is also split some on gender lines.

Smac would naturally relate more to the man/bishop in this story and we would more naturally relate to the woman. 

It could be that smac is offering the man the benefit of the doubt because that is what he would want to happen if he were ever accused of such a thing (and innocent, of course).  While we would want people to offer us empathy and acceptance if we were ever in the woman's shoes (something that unlike the men in these happenings, we don't have the power to control since she is the victim and not the perpetrator) and so that is what we offer to the woman.

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain what is causing you to surmise that conclusion?  (I'm trying to understand what your surmise is built on better)

Yes, @smac97, please do this.  I am wondering why you see less evidence is more likely when your personal experience has been at least once a case with more evidence than you are surmising was rejected by the prosecutor.  That experience seems to be more supportive of my supposition than yours (I see it as likely there is solid evidence driving the charge because of the tendency not to charge on claims of poor evidence.

Edited February 5 by Calm

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain what is causing you to surmise that conclusion?  (I'm trying to understand what your surmise is built on better)

I did already:

Quote

I would not be surprised if there is little-to-no evidence other than the say-so of the complainant. 

The alleged event happened 18+ years ago. 

No forensic evidence. 

Apparently no percipient witnesses {apart from the complainant}, and the potential witnesses may be barred as only able to offer hearsay. 

Also, I think there are some potential flaws in the Information, perhaps even serious ones.  

These really old cases are pretty hard to prove civilly, let along criminally.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did already:

These really old cases are pretty hard to prove civilly, let along criminally.

Thanks,

-Smac

That makes sense, thanks. 

[The Nehor]

On 2/4/2025 at 2:32 PM, bluebell said:

I saw that he was charged with sodomy. I find it harder to believe that he met with her one time and that in that one meeting he felt comfortable enough with his chances of getting away with it to escalate to that point, then I find it to believe that he met with her weekly.

This varies by abuser. Some go for a slow buildup so that the victim doesn’t realize what is going on or can insist to themselves they are misreading things and it slowly escalates. Some just dive in and rely on the shock and unbelievability of it.

Both would be plausible.

[longview]

On 2/5/2025 at 3:53 PM, The Nehor said:

Some go for a slow buildup so that the victim doesn’t realize what is going on or can insist to themselves they are misreading things and it slowly escalates.

That process is called grooming, right?

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, longview said:

That process is called grooming, right?

It can be a part of it but grooming involves more. Usually you socially isolate and/or make the victim of grooming dependent on you. The idea is to prep them to make them more open to abuse. Just escalating sexual experiences on its own is not grooming though it is often a part of grooming. Virtually all grooming is abuse but all abuse is not grooming.

I don’t know if these allegations would qualify as grooming. We don’t have enough information. If the allegations are true it was definitely abuse.

If a bishop was grooming a youth it would involve finding a vulnerable youth, finding time to be alone, and building trust. Even early the groomer will likely “test” what they can get away with. The next step is isolate the victim. The theoretical bishop could do this either with a strong relationship with the parents or by trying to isolate the youth from their parents. If parents are uncaring you can skip this step. You also want to do the same with victim’s other relationships. Either sabotage them somehow or get the victim away. Ideally you also want to get the victim to be dependent on you. This can be physical needs like money, food, and shelter. Sometimes you can use emotional needs. Once this is all in place the overt abuse starts as the victim doesn’t have any lifelines to grab or are at least convinced there aren’t any. Then you maintain control. This setup can be used to just get sexual or other access or to commodify the victim and exploit them in other ways.

Groomers are rarely one and done abusers. This case is more likely a one and done setup. That does not make it not abuse.