The MTC Abuse Story

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I've yet to hear of him personally and openly denying it; the only claim of that was filtered through his son/lawyer.  (Which sounds amusingly closely kin to uncle-dad when you actually say it.)

Reminding me of a line from Adam’s Rib:

 “Lawyers should never marry other lawyers.  This is known as ‘inbreeding’, and results in idiot children—and, more lawyers.”

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Ha. I'm in the ACLU and I interned for the public defenders in college. So while that doesn't make me an expert in any way, shape of form on legal affairs, it does sort of show where my sympathies are if you want to talk about rights of the accused. When the prosecution indicts him, he is absolutely, 100% entitled to a fair trial in front of objective jurors. 

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. And if you are innocent, it implies stupidity if you don't deny it.  If I accuse you @estradling75 of cheating on your wife (which is something you'd never do, I'm sure of it, and it's the first "crime" that popped into my head. I could have said auto theft, bank robbery) I'm 100% certain you wouldn't just meekly "not deny" anything, especially if you didn't cheat on her, steal a car, or rob a bank. 

What about for something as loaded as racism. Surely anyone accused of being racist would flatly deny it, or at least denounce it if given the chance? Nope! In a thread from not-so-long ago, 23 people participated and only 7 came out and denounced racism. And about half of them were of a weaker variety (something like "I totally agree with what you're saying"). 

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/60570-ok-everyone-you-need-to-denounce-white-supremacists/

Someone on that thread noted that once the "r" word is invoked how quickly even your guiltless words can be twisted against you. 

On 11/23/2016 at 2:32 PM, MormonGator said:

I think accusations of racism are always dangerous. A good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich and if I really wanted to I could probably misread your words and actions and make you out to be racist, too. You need to be careful because it's such a loaded term. 

It sounds like your silence will be too.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

9 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The legal system... is an adversarial system. (aka they fight and the Judge rules on the winner)  Thus lawyers are fighters who understand the rules of the "Fight Club"  Thus court and the events leading to it are fights.  While we might think attacks on character are low blows" they are legal ones.

JAG and DoctorLemon helped me out with that already.  

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, NightSG said:

I've yet to hear of him personally and openly denying it; the only claim of that was filtered through his son/lawyer.  (Which sounds amusingly closely kin to uncle-dad when you actually say it.)

Which is exactly what lawyers are for... They are hired to represent you

8 hours ago, NightSG said:

Even after she made the accusation? Even a drooling idiot would realize at that point it's time to make any denial right away.  "I don't recall but I'm sorry if I did" is awfully convenient when we have Ron "Rain Man" Leavitt clearly remembering this specific one out of thousands of meetings with his flock 34 years ago, and claiming that was because it lacked credibility.  Can you imagine if your brain kept meticulous and readily recallable track of every bit of information you didn't believe for decades?  I can clearly remember every girl I've gotten to second base with in the last 27 years, (technically in the last 41, but since the number prior to age 14 was zero, that doesn't really count) so how common would sexually abusing women have to be to relegate any particular one to "gee, I don't remember if I did that to you" status?

Which is countered by the claim of medical recovery and problems of old age.  Lets face it if your facility are impaired (which they claim his were) you might not be able to shift gears all that quickly from a nice friendly conversation to an unexpected attack on your character.  This kind of issue is why we have laws about senior fraud and why the love one of older folks might have to step in a take control of their lives.  Losing the ability to remember in old age is a real thing that happens, just like it is real thing that abuse survivors can act out and have character problems.

Leading back to the idea that if you come down on a particular side it shows more about your bias then it does about the truth.

 

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. And if you are innocent, it implies stupidity if you don't deny it.  

 Wait, are we still talking about Bishop’s comments on the released audio? Because yes indeed, she accused him of rape, and he did deny it. Also, the “gotcha” interview happened to days after he had had emergency heart surgery. He was still under the influence of some pretty hefty drugs. Plus, he’s in his 90s, and I think his son has been claiming he’s been showing some early signs of dementia. 

 Have you listened to the audio leak?

Edited April 1, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

JAG and DoctorLemon helped me out with that already.  

Cool...  Some people wonder why the legal system seems so unchristian and it seems to me that it is because of its adversarial nature.  You can have good Christian Lawyer just like you can have good Christian Fighters (see captain Moroni for the latter) but they might not be a common as we might hope.  And if you pull their actions out of the context of what they are fighting for they can appear to be quite horrific.

For example image Captain Moroni doing exactly the same thing but with out the context of a defensive war to protect his people..  Doing that paints a very horrific picture that completely distorts the character of the man.

For lawyers we have quite a few bad (aka unchristian) ones.  And most of us have no idea how legal battled are fought so even if we were seeing a good one we might have a hard time being able to tell.  Because it all look equally horrific to our indiscriminate eyes

[Guest]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. And if you are innocent, it implies stupidity if you don't deny it.  If I accuse you @estradling75 of cheating on your wife (which is something you'd never do, I'm sure of it, and it's the first "crime" that popped into my head. I could have said auto theft, bank robbery) I'm 100% certain you wouldn't just meekly "not deny" anything, especially if you didn't cheat on her, steal a car, or rob a bank. 

I disagree.  And I'm hoping this is a wording disagreement.  I agree that in this society, we automatically tend to believe that silence is an admission of guilt.  But I believe that is a misguided tendency.  It should not.  The 5th Amendment is not a brand of guilt.  It is a Constitutional Right.  The 2nd Amendment is not a sign that says "I'm going to kill someone" as many would have you believe.  It is a Constitutional Right.

The ACLU have advised MANY times to NOT talk to police.  Even when you deny a charge a word can be twisted into guilt.  You've seen the video where the police officer talks about a "gang style killing" and the audience member automatically assumes it is a gun related killing.  Then the policeman says,"I never said it was a gun.  How did you know that there was a gun involved?  You must be guilty."

No, you're not supposed to talk at all.  Unfortunately, this man did talk.  And his words are being twisted into guilt.  What's worse is that he is indeed guilty -- but not of rape.  And again the misguided tendency is to believe that if you're a slimeball, then you're also criminal.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Guest

[Grunt]

18 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This is the part that bothers me the most...

Thanks JAG, @DoctorLemon, and @Rob Osborn  for your comments. 

Why does that bother you?  This is no longer a spiritual matter, it's a legal matter.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Why does that bother you?  This is no longer a spiritual matter, it's a legal matter.

Honestly, if there is one thing I have learned about participating on this board is to not let things get personal.  If I tried to explain the answer to that it would be to personal--for me---so I can't go there.  Sorry.  

[mikegriffith]

I would bet very good money that cases of abuse in the MTC have been extremely rare.

[mirkwood]

A good investigator will look at all sides of a rape accusation.  That includes the character of both victim and suspect.  That is due diligence in investigating a crime.  We had a lady in one area I worked who reported being raped regularly.  We had all taken that report, some of us multiple times.  None of them were ever shown to be true, or have any supporting evidence.  Then we have the group that when they get caught having sex will say they were raped in order to not "get in trouble" with their parents/spouse/significant other.  The way some people are talking we should have hammered the "suspects" in those cases.  I find that disturbing.  

There are those who read this post and just decided I am a sex assault denier.  For that group, go back and re-read my post.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

A good investigator will look at all sides of a rape accusation.  That includes the character of both victim and suspect.  That is due diligence in investigating a crime.  We had a lady in one area I worked who reported being raped regularly.  We had all taken that report, some of us multiple times.  None of them were ever shown to be true, or have any supporting evidence.  Then we have the group that when they get caught having sex will say they were raped in order to not "get in trouble" with their parents/spouse/significant other.  The way some people are talking we should have hammered the "suspects" in those cases.  I find that disturbing.  

There are those who read this post and just decided I am a sex assault denier.  For that group, go back and re-read my post.

So, in your experience and estimation, what percentages would you put to the true, false, or partial?

[NeuroTypical]

Keep in mind - Law enforcement and courts can only view things through a narrow window of evidence and motive and stuff.  By it's very nature, sexual intimacy happens in private, with no witnesses.  Any evidence might not point towards good or bad.  I'm guessing cops days are full of hearing from people claiming stuff, without much evidence.

They tell me maybe one out of a hundred reported assaults actually end up in conviction.  

They tell me your best chances of getting justice include immediate reporting.  Emergency room rape kits.  Pictures of bruises or abrasions.  The lady claims Bishop ripped her clothing - there's probably be fewer undecided folk if she had gone to the cops within the hour and the ripped clothing had been put into evidence.

(My overall point is not that people lie - my point is that our earthly systems of justice often are inadequate.)

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Why does that bother you?  This is no longer a spiritual matter, it's a legal matter.

Agreed Grunt. I am not sure why this should bother anyone. This is no different than confidential matters that are discussed with any psychologist (the only difference at play -- religion). If a person visits a doctor's office (confidential records), and then proclaims an office member raped them. These confidential records will now be viewed by parties involved. Nothing disturbing in the least. Now, if the Church all of a sudden started releasing confidential annotations on records, without any just cause, well (religion set aside) this wouldn't be good for any institution or practice.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Agreed Grunt. I am not sure why this should bother anyone. This is no different than confidential matters that are discussed with any psychologist (the only difference at play -- religion). If a person visits a doctor's office (confidential records), and then proclaims an office member raped them. These confidential records will now be viewed by parties involved. Nothing disturbing in the least. Now, if the Church all of a sudden started releasing confidential annotations on records, without any just cause, well (religion set aside) this wouldn't be good for any practice.

In fairness to @LiterateParakeet, the KUTV story was written in such a way as to *suggest* (without explicitly saying) that 1) the LDS Church made a deliberate attempt to leak the accuser’s ecclesiastical history to the media using Greg Bishop as their stool pigeon; and 2)  that the dossier was prepared as part of a PR campaign to publicly exonerate Joseph Bishop, rather than as privately-prepared settlement document limited to attorney use as a response to the accuser’s threat of litigation.  

As intended, that’s the way most people are reading it; and IF either of those had been accurate, then LP would be right to be concerned—indeed, outraged.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

They tell me your best chances of getting justice include immediate reporting.  Emergency room rape kits.  Pictures of bruises or abrasions.  The lady claims Bishop ripped her clothing - there's probably be fewer undecided folk if she had gone to the cops within the hour and the ripped clothing had been put into evidence.

I also wonder (not that I'm drawing a conclusion, just wonder) how one could walk from a hidden room in the MTC with ripped blouse and torn skirt, companion-less, to one's room to change, etc., without anyone noticing or asking what was wrong/what happened. Of course that well may have happened and the answer may well have been "Nothing. I'm fine. I....tripped..." or some such.

Edited April 1, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Why does that bother you?  This is no longer a spiritual matter, it's a legal matter.

I also wonder why people are intent on trying this case in the court of public opinion rather than leaving it to the legal system where, presumably, the rights of all parties are protected?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 Wait, are we still talking about Bishop’s comments on the released audio? Because yes indeed, she accused him of rape, and he did deny it. Also, the “gotcha” interview happened to days after he had had emergency heart surgery. He was still under the influence of some pretty hefty drugs. Plus, he’s in his 90s, and I think his son has been claiming he’s been showing some early signs of dementia. 

 Have you listened to the audio leak?

Bishop did not deny her allegation of rape, he said he did not remember.

Bishop is 85 years old, it's a fact. Yes, his advanced age would make him susceptible to memory problems. So why the exaggeration of him being in his 90s? You don't think anyone would believe that a person in their 80s could show signs of dementia?

M.

[NeuroTypical]

37 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Bishop did not deny her allegation of rape, he said he did not remember.

Well, the thing is quite long.  I suppose neither one of us can just sum up by saying "he denied" or "he said he did not remember"

Her: Do you remember [allegation of violent attempted rape]. You don't remember that?
Him: No. Let me tell you what I do remember.
Her: Okay. Do you know who I am?
Him: No. I don't. Are you, yeah I do.
Her: I threatened to kill you in 2010.
Him: Do you have some biker friends?
Her: No, biker friends? God, no.
Him: You had, you came in the mission ... tell me your name.
Her: [redacted]
Him: Your last name back then.
Her: [redacted]
Him: You came in to the mission and you had had a tough life.
Her: And you know that because ... we had conversations.
Him: Yeah.
Her: Yes that's correct. 
Him: You went over to the temple, had your picture taken, was that?
Her: No.
Him: Okay. 

Etc.

37 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Bishop is 85 years old, it's a fact. Yes, his advanced age would make him susceptible to memory problems. So why the exaggeration of him being in his 90s? You don't think anyone would believe that a person in their 80s could show signs of dementia?

I made a mistake.  It was not an exaggeration, it was an error.  A simple trip to Wiki would have prevented it, but I didn't do it.

I have no victim shaming or wagon circling to offer.  I have no bloodlust for justice or armchair convicting to offer.  I'm trying to comment on the tragedy of the whole topic, and how our mere mortal efforts to approximate righteous justice and mercy, often fall far, far short.  I am speaking from a background of having married into a family tragically suffering under the burdens of intergenerational incest, and I speak from personal experience how difficult, often impossible, it is to see true healing justice done in this life.

Edited April 1, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Emergency room rape kits.

Oh, don't even get me (or any other Texan who has looked at the DL/ID renewal form in the last couple years) started on rape kits.  Really starting to look like time for another Texas Revolution.

Edited April 1, 2018 by NightSG

[paracaidista508]

I have no idea if this guy is guilty or not. Interesting article reference confrontational phone calls by the police. Although the accuser is not a cop, her confrontation of the accused was pulled off in a manner like she has read up on this technique. Not perfect, but she did a good job. The agency I worked for routinely uses these calls to lock suspects into statements, get confessions etc. They do not always work, but they often do and people go to prison.

Enjoy:

https://www.denver-colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/colorado-state-sex-crimes/attacking-the-investigation-of-date-acquaintance-sexual-assault-the-pretext-phone-call-part-ii-of-ii

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by paracaidista508

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

I have no idea if this guy is guilty or not. Interesting article reference confrontational phone calls by the police. Although the accuser is not a cop, her confrontation of the accused was pulled off in a manner like she has read up on this technique. Not perfect, but she did a good job. The agency I worked for routinely uses these calls to lock suspects into statements, get confessions etc. They do not always work, but they often do and people go to prison.

Enjoy:

https://www.denver-colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/colorado-state-sex-crimes/attacking-the-investigation-of-date-acquaintance-sexual-assault-the-pretext-phone-call-part-ii-of-ii

 

I’ve never been trained on that technique; but the doubletalk (at least, as contained within this description of it) seems remarkable:  1) confront the suspect using language specifically calculated so as to *not* elicit a denial, and then 2) argue at trial that the absence of a denial constitutes guilt.

By the way, Madi Barney did the same thing to her rapist; and he was still acquitted at trial.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ve never been trained on that technique; but the doubletalk (at least, as contained within this description of it) seems remarkable:  1) confront the suspect using language specifically calculated so as to *not* elicit a denial, and then 2) argue at trial that the absence of a denial constitutes guilt.

During the pretext call the alleged victim will avoid harsh, accusatory questions like, “Why did you rape me!” Because 
the answer is, “I didn’t rape you.” The questions are carefully phrased:
“Why did you have sex with me after I pushed you away and told you to stop”,
or
“You knew I was out of it and didn’t know what was going on, but you had sex with me anyway. Why”
This type of question is more likely to elicit an incriminating statement. The alleged victims are advised 
to avoid nebulous questions like, “Why did you do it”
A lack of denial by the suspect is argued at trial to be as incriminating as an admission.

That's not "phrasing to avoid a denial," it's phrasing to clarify exactly what happened.  A rapist may not feel that what he did was "real rape" because she didn't fight back enough, or because she seemed to be enjoying it at some point.  One can just as easily categorically deny either of the example situations, and I can't imagine a scenario where an innocent man wouldn't deny them.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Her: Do you remember [allegation of violent attempted rape]. You don't remember that?
Him: No. Let me tell you what I do remember.
Her: Okay. Do you know who I am?
Him: No. I don't. Are you, yeah I do.
Her: I threatened to kill you in 2010.
Him: Do you have some biker friends?
Her: No, biker friends? God, no.
Him: You had, you came in the mission ... tell me your name.
Her: [redacted]
Him: Your last name back then.
Her: [redacted]
Him: You came in to the mission and you had had a tough life.
Her: And you know that because ... we had conversations.
Him: Yeah.
Her: Yes that's correct. 
Him: You went over to the temple, had your picture taken, was that?
Her: No.
Him: Okay. 

This sounds absolutely NOTHING like any kind of a confession.  It sounds like he had absolutely no idea what she was talking about.  And it seemed like he didn't even remember who she was.  How on earth did this get twisted into a "confession"?

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

During the pretext call the alleged victim will avoid harsh, accusatory questions like, “Why did you rape me!” Because 
the answer is, “I didn’t rape you.” The questions are carefully phrased:
“Why did you have sex with me after I pushed you away and told you to stop”,
or
“You knew I was out of it and didn’t know what was going on, but you had sex with me anyway. Why”
This type of question is more likely to elicit an incriminating statement. The alleged victims are advised 
to avoid nebulous questions like, “Why did you do it”
A lack of denial by the suspect is argued at trial to be as incriminating as an admission.

That's not "phrasing to avoid a denial," it's phrasing to clarify exactly what happened.  A rapist may not feel that what he did was "real rape" because she didn't fight back enough, or because she seemed to be enjoying it at some point.  One can just as easily categorically deny either of the example situations, and I can't imagine a scenario where an innocent man wouldn't deny them.

Oh, malarkey.  What we have here is a situation where folks first say “well, he didn’t deny it, so that shows he’s guilty”; and then it becomes apparent that even if he’d come right out and said “Ma’am, I did not rape you”, folks would still be presuming him guilty because the denial was insufficiently fact-specific.  You’re playing “hide the ball” with the standard of evidence.

I realize that these recent revelations about a corrupt MTC president are like Christmas morning for a certain subset of Mormons who have long resented the Church’s emphasis on missionary service.  But really, that’s no excuse for them to throw logic and fair play by the wayside and set up their own latter-day Star Chambers.