The MTC Abuse Story


Guest LiterateParakeet
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

If you shoot a man in what you believe is legitimate defense of your child, and someone asks why you murdered him, you're going to deny that you did. 

What the example questions are designed to establish is simple facts; did the accused have sex with the alleged victim after being pushed away and told no, or when he was aware that she was not sober enough to make a valid decision to have sex?  He can then deny all or part: he didn't have sex with her at all; or he only persisted after being pushed away because she had told him she likes it rough; or because she was juggling knives without issue he didn't believe that she was too drunk to say no if she really didn't want to have sex.  In any of those cases, he's certainly going to deny raping her.

After the facts are established, then a court can decide whether the circumstances constitute rape, just like a court will need to know that you did indeed shoot that man before deciding whether or not the circumstances justify it as a proper defense of a third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, NightSG said:

If you shoot a man in what you believe is legitimate defense of your child, and someone asks why you murdered him, you're going to deny that you did. 

What the example questions are designed to establish is simple facts; did the accused have sex with the alleged victim after being pushed away and told no, or when he was aware that she was not sober enough to make a valid decision to have sex?  He can then deny all or part: he didn't have sex with her at all; or he only persisted after being pushed away because she had told him she likes it rough; or because she was juggling knives without issue he didn't believe that she was too drunk to say no if she really didn't want to have sex.  In any of those cases, he's certainly going to deny raping her.

After the facts are established, then a court can decide whether the circumstances constitute rape, just like a court will need to know that you did indeed shoot that man before deciding whether or not the circumstances justify it as a proper defense of a third party.

Sophistry.  First he’s guilty because he wouldn’t deny raping her, because any innocent person would deny success a heinous allegation immediately, doncha know?!  But yhen you admit you don’t *want* him to deny raping her and that even if he does, he’s still guilty if he declines to repeatedly engage with and explicitly deny a particular version of the event presented to him thirty years after the fact.

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say that an innocent person would surely deny a suggested pattern of behavior that is deliberately crafted to sound so innocuous as to be readily admissible.  

People who engage in such tactics betray their own personal desire to view him as guilty of rape.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people who have made a choice to believe a victim (not every victim - just the one they know) - use both their hands to comfort.  One is not wiping away tears while the other one is reaching out to strangle, in cold blood, the person who is accused.  At least most of the people i know.  

Honestly, this whole situation explains why most abusers are not prosecuted.  Because the processes for doing so are just so damaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Honestly, this whole situation explains why most abusers are not prosecuted.  Because the processes for doing so are just so damaging.

This is something I know to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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"?

Maureen and I were referring to this single part of a very, very long conversation.  He does apologize and admit to many things, quite often, about things involving her and other girls, but what he's admitting to and apologizing for is usually vague.  What I quoted was a part of, the handful of, specific instances where, it got explicit about actual rape.  Honestly, if you've got 90 minutes and not enough burdens in your life, you might want to consider listening to the audio.  You'll come away burdened like me, but much more knowledgeable about who is actually saying what and how. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Honestly, this whole situation explains why most abusers are not prosecuted.  Because the processes for doing so are just so damaging.

Sadly, but expectantly,  the damage is far worse when such matters are tried in the court of public opinion, where there is little to no rules of evidence and protection of rights, and where virtue signalling is preferred over justice, and where there are old axes to be exploitatively ground.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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. :rolleyes:

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

Are you a sex crimes detective? If not, why in the world would you expect to be trained in confrontational calls?

Funny you mention Barney. So what with the aquittal...so was OJ. We did find out that byu was extremely unethical in the handling of the case. Thanks for bringing that up. I never even heard of it and had a good read. Byu is not impressive in their handling of it.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Funny you mention Barney. So what with the aquittal...so was OJ. We did find out that byu was extremely unethical in the handling of the case. Thanks for bringing that up. I never even heard of it and had a good read. Byu is not impressive in their handling of it.

Be specific. What did BYU do that was "unethical"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

[1] Are you a sex crimes detective? If not, why in the world would you expect to be trained in confrontational calls?

[2] Funny you mention Barney. So what with the aquittal...so was OJ. We did find out that byu was extremely unethical in the handling of the case. Thanks for bringing that up. I never even heard of it and had a good read. Byu is not impressive in their handling of it.

1.  I work in child protection, yes.  Not closely enough to actually interview victims; but closely enough that I often watch the video recordings of the interviews and have to present them to third parties.

2.  The point, your apparent anti-BYU bile aside, is that the technique doesn’t always get a prosecutor where he wants to be vis a vis a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Be specific. What did BYU do that was "unethical"?

Knowingly accepting privileged info from the cop to honor code the girl. Also, co mingling title 9 and honor code folks is just a nice way of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault. 

The cop got disciplined for essentially stealing a policecreport and delivering it to byu. Byu then used it against the girl. That is not ethical....the ends does not justify the means..well maybe at byu it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Knowingly accepting privileged info from the cop to honor code the girl. Also, co mingling title 9 and honor code folks is just a nice way of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault. 

The cop got disciplined for essentially stealing a policecreport and delivering it to byu. Byu then used it against the girl. That is not ethical....the ends does not justify the means..well maybe at byu it does.

I’m not saying you’re a liar, insofar as I doubt you’re deliberately making stuff up.  But you’re certainly repeating lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  I work in child protection, yes.  Not closely enough to actually interview victims; but closely enough that I often watch the video recordings of the interviews and have to present them to third parties.

2.  The point, your apparent anti-BYU bile aside, is that the technique doesn’t always get a prosecutor where he wants to be vis a vis a jury.

1...you will never get trained in it. Be a sex crimes detective and you may.

2. I do believe I said it does not always result in conviction or something to that effect. Doesn’t invalidate the method

 BYU means  nothing to me. I just thought their handling was so... 1850 ish.  Any modern university has had protocol in place for a long time as to how to handle this stuff and how to legally get police reports if needed.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not saying you’re a liar, insofar as I doubt you’re deliberately making stuff up.  But you’re certainly repeating lies.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/court-audio-contradicts-intentions-of-deputy-involved-in-byu-student/article_c8442c96-b100-54a9-84d4-8e0a0d1f3be1.amp.html

may as well call me a liar then as I don’t accidentally make stuff up. Nothing is made up here. That deputy stole that report. BYU used it and they knew it was stolen. They know the protocol for getting these reports and when it lands in your lap without you requesting it or having the victim bring it to you??? Well that is a stolen report and It is unethical to use it.

Re the link you referenced. The deputy resigned his certification and retired. No innocent cop does that. I was a cop for 20 yrs and the only ones who went out like that was the ones who wanted resume preservation.

 

 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:19 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

This went WAAAY to far under the radar in regards to the Original topic.

I have seen the abuse cases regarding the LDS church and they always are tragic.  In regards to the situation that has arisen in regards to the MTC case as well as MANY others, and the pleas of many parents, those who have been victims, and otherwise, the LDS church HAS been listening from what I can see.  In accordance they have CHANGED THEIR POLICIES in this.

Some big and important changes.  Parents can sit in during interviews with their children.  ANY child, teen, or woman who desires to have another adult in the room with them while being interviewed is free to have that adult with them.

In addition, from now on, in ANY situation (class or activity) which involves children or youth, TWO adults should be present at all times.  This is for the protection of the children and youth as well as that of the leaders.

I have never objected to any parent sitting in or being around when I am with children, and at times have actually encouraged parents to do so (it has always puzzled me about the culture where parents want to just drop their children off at the church, or even odder, when I try to convince parents to at least wait for their children in the foyer or an adjoining area instead of simply dropping a child off for interviews or activities).  I am well aware of the ideas that children may not confess certain things if their parents are in the room, but I've also held to the belief that parents are supposed to be the TRUE leaders of their family, first and foremost before any other leader of the church.  Fathers and mothers have a special connection that allows them to receive specific revelations and inspirations for their family which other church leaders simply many times do not receive.

I think this is a great step for the church to take.

 

MY THOUGHTS on the other items that was brought up in the thread earlier.

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 6:17 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

I didn't know that since I don't read that blog.  How long have you been reading it?  LOL.  
 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I can tell you it's more than one man.  I could post links to articles of Bishops (three), a Seminary Principle, Youth Leaders....all abusing their position. Suppose you are teaching the youth at church and they ask you, How do we reconcile that with the teachings that these men are called of God?  Joseph Bishop's leaders talked to him and he denied doing anything (though he know admits some of it.)  So he was guilty, where was the Gift of Discernment that we are taught about?  I'm not seeking to change anyone, but to understand how to move forward with this new, disturbing knowledge.  How do we explain this to them, and to ourselves.  That's the answer I'm looking for. 

In regards to inspiration and the spirit of discernment.  This is hard at times.  There are times when I have had this discernment leap out and jump right at me, it is undeniable.  At other times, it is far harder to tell whether what I'm feeling is discernment, a gut instinct, or simply a reaction to my own prejudices.  There are even times when I have prayed for inspiration and cannot really claim that I felt anything specifically telling me to do one thing or another.

The first time it was really important to do this was when I was a young Elders quorum president soon after my mission.  I was told to create and assign home teaching lists.  I prayed, but I didn't feel anything specifically telling me one way or another.  I had a deadline which I had to finish the lists and tell the Bishop and Ward Clerk what I had decided.  It ended up with me doing the best I could with the best reasoning I had.  In retrospect I can see how the Lord helped me with those lists (our hometeaching ended up with great numbers and percentages and a huge success overall with inactives and others). 

Sometimes, it as more of who would even accept a calling rather than direct inspiration.  You may feel someone should be called, but they flat out say no to a calling.  Sometimes there are other reasons people are called.  At times it may not be direct inspiration, but rather that we just did not get an answer that tells us that someone should NOT be called.  In this, perhaps they may do WELL in the calling, but are also liable to fall into sin if they are not careful.  It does not mean they may not be great for the calling and they and those they are to minister to will not be blessed as LONG AS THEY ARE RIGHTEOUS, but it also means that if they fall and make mistakes it can cause grievous harm.

We see this a lot in the church.  Many Patriarchal blessings have this where it states certain blessings are predicated upon one's righteousness.  If one is righteous, all the things they are called to do and the ensuing blessings are given.  If they are NOT righteous though...does this mean that the blessing was wrong?  Or is it that they had wonderful possibilities that were inspired, but due to unfortunate circumstances these did not come to pass?

At times, there may be BETTER choices for church leaders.  As I said, it is not always the BEST person who gets the calling.  The individual gets the calling because the Lord does not say NO.  Leaders are chosen from those that other leaders either meet or know, and at times, there IS bias in the selection.  I have actually mentioned this at times in several of my posts.  That does not mean the callings are not inspired or that there is no prayers for it in the selection, rather that the church is for people, and as such is heavily reliant upon people's choices and fallibilities.    AS we see in the scriptures, the LORD will allow us to make foolish choices, even with our leaders at times...but that does NOT negate that the Lord is in charge, or that we do receive inspiration in the selection of church leaders.

It is a difficult thing to differentiate at times.  We can see the fallibility of men very clearly with certain leaders, while at the same time we can see the hand of the Lord.  A prime example is Sidney Rigdon.  I have no doubts he was called of the Lord for his positions and his work in the church.  Because of his calling he was HIGHLY beneficial to the church in it's early years.  Later, he caused some burdens and detriments to the church.  It was his own fallibilities that led to this.  This does not mean he was not chosen of the Lord, but that he had weaknesses and in this, his fallibilities also created difficulties and problems.  Hence it is with much of the church and our leaders at times.  Leaders are not chosen because they are perfect, but due to their particular strengths they may be able to do things for the church others might not be able to do.  Leaders are just as fallible as others and because men can fall to temptation, leaders have that same temptation and inclination where, because they are not perfect, may do things just as bad as anyone else.  The problem is, because of their positions, at times the ramifications can be FAR worse than someone who did not have that position of authority. 

In these instances, just like Sidney Rigdon, these normally are a reflections on the imperfections of men rather than that of the Lord.  We live in an imperfect world and as such, we have imperfect leaders who we HOPE are striving to be perfect, but are normally just another member trying to be like the Lord just like any other member in the church.

Just some of my thoughts on answering a VERY hard question in regards to why, at times, a few Leaders do bad things in the church if we are supposed to have the spirit of discernment or inspiration in their choosing.  IT IS a hard question and one I probably do not have all the answers to.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just some of my thoughts on answering a VERY hard question in regards to why, at times, a few Leaders do bad things in the church if we are supposed to have the spirit of discernment or inspiration in their choosing.  IT IS a hard question and one I probably do not have all the answers to.

Thank you.  That was the most helpful thing anyone has said to me about this.  I really appreciate it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/court-audio-contradicts-intentions-of-deputy-involved-in-byu-student/article_c8442c96-b100-54a9-84d4-8e0a0d1f3be1.amp.html

may as well call me a liar then as I don’t accidentally make stuff up. Nothing is made up here. That deputy stole that report. BYU used it and they knew it was stolen. They know the protocol for getting these reports and when it lands in your lap without you requesting it or having the victim bring it to you??? Well that is a stolen report and It is unethical to use it.

The written report repeatedly said he "took the report to BYU".  I didn't hear how they knew it was "stolen".  Is the Honor Code office trained in police procedures?  Did they know that seeing a police report that was handed to them by a police officer would be illegal? These are honest questions.  What did they know?

Quote

Re the link you referenced. The deputy resigned his certification and retired. No innocent cop does that. I was a cop for 20 yrs and the only ones who went out like that was the ones who wanted resume preservation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/darren-wilson-resigned-from-the-ferguson-police-department-what-will-he-do-now/?utm_term=.03728cf9856f

http://www.ibtimes.com/where-darren-wilson-now-update-ferguson-police-officer-who-shot-michael-brown-2398658

Now, I do believe Randolph did wrong.  And, YES, he should have gotten terminated.  But the blanket statement you said -- it is lacking.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

1...you will never get trained in it. Be a sex crimes detective and you may.

2. I do believe I said it does not always result in conviction or something to that effect. Doesn’t invalidate the method

 BYU means  nothing to me. I just thought their handling was so... 1850 ish.  Any modern university has had protocol in place for a long time as to how to handle this stuff and how to legally get police reports if needed.

1.  This weird fixation on the details of my professional qualifications and training is odd, but I'll play along.  Yes, I probably won't get "trained" well enough to do it.  I may well at some point be "trained" in the sense of getting a two-hour crash course on the basics, similar to those I have received on--for example--NICHD interviewing protocols.

2.  Err . . . I'm surprised I have to explain this to you; but the point of these sorts of interviews is to get a confession that can be used--wait for it--to throw the rapist in jail.  Not to get good stuff you can leak to the public in an attempt to embarass third-party institutions you're already predisposed to dislike.  Barney's alleged assailant is a free man; ergo, her "pretext interview" failed.  And "pretext interviews" were the subject under discussion before you jumped in and hijacked the discussion with your vendetta against me and against BYU.

10 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/court-audio-contradicts-intentions-of-deputy-involved-in-byu-student/article_c8442c96-b100-54a9-84d4-8e0a0d1f3be1.amp.html

may as well call me a liar then as I don’t accidentally make stuff up. Nothing is made up here. That deputy stole that report. BYU used it and they knew it was stolen. They know the protocol for getting these reports and when it lands in your lap without you requesting it or having the victim bring it to you??? Well that is a stolen report and It is unethical to use it.

Re the link you referenced. The deputy resigned his certification and retired. No innocent cop does that. I was a cop for 20 yrs and the only ones who went out like that was the ones who wanted resume preservation.

Okay, let's review the lies; both from your earlier post and from your more recent one:

1.   Also, co mingling title 9 and honor code folks is just a nice way of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault. 

Maybe more of a distortion than an outright lie.  BYU couldn't have cared three straws whether Barney or any other BYU student reported sexual assault.  Their preoccupation was with ensuring that Barney, who had committed to living chastely in exchange for a college education that the Church was subsidizing to the tune of $20-$30K per year, wasn't dealing falsely with them.  

2.  The cop got disciplined for essentially stealing a policecreport and delivering it to byu.

Two lies in one.  

a)  He (Randolph) was disciplined for maintaining social contact with an individual who also happened to be on supervised probation by the agency Randolph worked for.

b)  He did not steal the police report.  The defendant, Seidu, who had received a copy of the report as part of his pre-trial discovery, passed it on to Randolph.  

3.  Byu then used it against the girl.

Lie.  BYUHCO never got a chance to "use it", because Barney never engaged with the HCO fact-finding process.  HCO received information that Barney may have engaged in voluntary sexual relations prior to her assault--information they could have acted upon after getting it orally from Randolph, Seidu, or Barney's own roommates; regardless of whether they ever saw or retained the report.  (There's no "fruit of a poisonous tree" doctrine at the HCO.)  HCO asked Barney to appear before them to explain herself.  She got a one-semester extension from HCO due to the pending litigation, and then withdrew rather than face the music when BYU declined to give her a second extension.  

4.  BYU used it and they knew it was stolen.

Lie.  BYU didn't know it was stolen, because it wasn't stolen (see above).  Nor did they have any immediate way of knowing whether it was prevented from further dissemination under a Rule 16(e) or 16(f) order.

5.  The deputy resigned his certification and retired. No innocent cop does that. I was a cop for 20 yrs and the only ones who went out like that was the ones who wanted resume preservation.

Not necessarily a lie, but worth noting:  Randolph isn't the only person in this sorry little debacle who acted questionably, then chose to cut their losses and withdraw in the face of pending institutional disciplinary proceedings.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The written report repeatedly said he "took the report to BYU".  I didn't hear how they knew it was "stolen".  Is the Honor Code office trained in police procedures?  Did they know that seeing a police report that was handed to them by a police officer would be illegal? These are honest questions.  What did they know?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/01/darren-wilson-resigned-from-the-ferguson-police-department-what-will-he-do-now/?utm_term=.03728cf9856f

http://www.ibtimes.com/where-darren-wilson-now-update-ferguson-police-officer-who-shot-michael-brown-2398658

Now, I do believe Randolph did wrong.  And, YES, he should have gotten terminated.  But the blanket statement you said -- it is lacking.

Any LE Officer (Randolph included) knows that if you get a hold of a police report of an "in-progress" investigation....no matter how and then unofficially transfer it to someone else who likely has no legal authority to view it is in violation of the law. All cops know this. Especially when the suspect is your friend. Let the friend take it to the cops, not you. This is why he initially got charged with witness tampering. BYU used it to kick the girl out of school prior to trial.

As for Wilson resigning...he did so AFTER he was cleared of any wrong doing by a grand jury. He cited his presence in Ferguson would be a hazard to his fellow officers. Judging by what was going on in Ferguson at the time I agree with him. His case is extreme. The BYU thing....not so much. Randolph left because his case got referred to the POST board by his very own sheriff...his employer.

If your own boss submits your case to the POST board, that means they not only want to fire you, but it is a means to ensure you never get employed in that state or other states in LE ever again. Usually it is because you are a liability, corrupt, incompetent or all three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paracaidista508 said:

Any LE Officer (Randolph included) knows...

I can't tell yet if you're purposefully evading my question or if you just missed it, so I'll ask again.

You talked about Randolph.  I was asking about BYU's HONOR CODE OFFICE.  Not the police.  Not the Title 9 office.  Not the BYU Police.  The HONOR CODE OFFICE.

As for Wilson, I don't see how that makes any difference.  You said that NO OFFICER resigns unless they are guilty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2018 at 9:59 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

It has been once said, paraphrased, "There is no salvation in believing false reports about people." If an entity is misrepresenting information and someone gets bothered, this says more about the person bothered than it does the institution as they didn't do any research -- they blindly accepted what was said.

As pertaining to your last statement beginning with a bolded "IF" -- I don't see anything different to my last statement, "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 the LDS Church, why do people want to believe (especially LDS members) false reports or misinformation that are given in ways to *suggest* rather than doing their research? Or as @wenglund (sorry to pull you in, but I 100% agree with the following statement), "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?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  This weird fixation on the details of my professional qualifications and training is odd, but I'll play along.  Yes, I probably won't get "trained" well enough to do it.  I may well at some point be "trained" in the sense of getting a two-hour crash course on the basics, similar to those I have received on--for example--NICHD interviewing protocols.

I don't have a weird fixation on your job. You brought up the fact you weren't trained in pretextual phone calls. Your bringing this up implied in my mind that due to your current job,i f it was a valid technique you would know about it.

2.  Err . . . I'm surprised I have to explain this to you; but the point of these sorts of interviews is to get a confession that can be used--wait for it--to throw the rapist in jail.  Not to get good stuff you can leak to the public in an attempt to embarass third-party institutions you're already predisposed to dislike.  Barney's alleged assailant is a free man; ergo, her "pretext interview" failed.  And "pretext interviews" were the subject under discussion before you jumped in and hijacked the discussion with your vendetta against me and against BYU.

I agree...if done by an LE agency or law firm. This was the alleged victim. She can do what she wants with it. As for a vendetta against BYU...I have none other than I find their handling of this to be way out of line.

Okay, let's review the lies; both from your earlier post and from your more recent one:

1.   Also, co mingling title 9 and honor code folks is just a nice way of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault. 

Maybe more of a distortion than an outright lie.  BYU couldn't have cared three straws whether Barney or any other BYU student reported sexual assault.  Their preoccupation was with ensuring that Barney, who had committed to living chastely in exchange for a college education that the Church was subsidizing to the tune of $20-$30K per year, wasn't dealing falsely with them.  

They cared enough to look into it with an unsolicited reporting by Randolph. Apparently he gave them a 3 day heads up and BYU PD accessed the Spillman Database to pull up the sexual assault report (that access is likely illegal BTW as they had no involvement in the investigation) from Provo PD. BYU PD shard it with Title IX office which is also illegal. Three days later, in marche Randolph with a couple other people to report Barney for an honor code violation. He did this with both a BYU detective and Title IX person present. 
As a Deputy (corrextions guy I guess so not a real cop) he knows better than to take up causes of people who are currently being prosecuted for felonies within their own jurisdiction. What kind of an idiot is this guy?

2.  The cop got disciplined for essentially stealing a policecreport and delivering it to byu.

Two lies in one.  

a)  He (Randolph) was disciplined for maintaining social contact with an individual who also happened to be on supervised probation by the agency Randolph worked for.

b)  He did not steal the police report.  The defendant, Seidu, who had received a copy of the report as part of his pre-trial discovery, passed it on to Randolph.  

Already explained re the stealing of a report. He had no business as an LE officer for transferring that report to BYU. Those are strictly need to know only. The suspect could have done that, but he did not.

3.  Byu then used it against the girl.

Lie.  BYUHCO never got a chance to "use it", because Barney never engaged with the HCO fact-finding process.  HCO received information that Barney may have engaged in voluntary sexual relations prior to her assault--information they could have acted upon after getting it orally from Randolph, Seidu, or Barney's own roommates; regardless of whether they ever saw or retained the report.  (There's no "fruit of a poisonous tree" doctrine at the HCO.)  HCO asked Barney to appear before them to explain herself.  She got a one-semester extension from HCO due to the pending litigation, and then withdrew rather than face the music when BYU declined to give her a second extension.  

4.  BYU used it and they knew it was stolen.

Lie.  BYU didn't know it was stolen, because it wasn't stolen (see above).  Nor did they have any immediate way of knowing whether it was prevented from further dissemination under a Rule 16(e) or 16(f) order.

BYU PD detective was sitting right there. He knew they were not supposed to use that report. It was none of of their business. They did it anyway. 

Why do you think when this came out Provo PD was like how they heck these guys get the police report??? Come to find out BYU had access to the Spillman database. Apparently they are not supposed to so that is under investigation. Additionally, once Provo PD got wind of this they found BYU pd had accessed thousands of their reports for unknown reasons...that will be another juicy finding I am sure. So Provo looks into this and finds out BYU PD accessed the sexual assault report three days prior to Randolph delivering the paper copy to them. Right after Randolph calls them and tells them of the sex assault allegation and wanting to report an honor code violation. BTW- what adult living in the real world has time or the inclination to report some honor code violation to BYU? 

5.  The deputy resigned his certification and retired. No innocent cop does that. I was a cop for 20 yrs and the only ones who went out like that was the ones who wanted resume preservation.

Not necessarily a lie, but worth noting:  Randolph isn't the only person in this sorry little debacle who acted questionably, then chose to cut their losses and withdraw in the face of pending institutional disciplinary proceedings.

 

On Edit BYU dos have access to Spillman database. The problem is two-fold:
1- Why did they access the sexual assault report?
2- Why did BYU PD make thousands of inquiries in the database. That is under investigation by the state.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can't tell yet if you're purposefully evading my question or if you just missed it, so I'll ask again.

You talked about Randolph.  I was asking about BYU's HONOR CODE OFFICE.  Not the police.  Not the Title 9 office.  Not the BYU Police.  The HONOR CODE OFFICE.

As for Wilson, I don't see how that makes any difference.  You said that NO OFFICER resigns unless they are guilty. 

No Im not evading...just missed it apparently.

The honor code office apparently has been working hand in hand with BYU PD. I find it highly unlikely that BYU PD has not educated the honor code office about if, when and how they can get access to a police report for any reason. That said, the honor code office likely has a policy in place that tells employees when they may request a report from the BYU pd or any pd for that matter. If BYU does not have a policy in place (at that time) re report sharing etc...then they are severely mistaken. I started my police career over 25 yrs ago and report sharing under any circumstance except official is pretty much illegal. Any LE agency worth its salt would have a policy clearly drawing a line....maybe BYU didn't and that will be a problem for them.

Randolph knew what he was doing was wrong and so did BYU PD/ Honor code office.

Wilson was a one off so I'll clarify....
Under normal circumstances, a cop who is accused of wrongdoing in a fairly benign case esp not related to use of force, will not resign in the face of an investigation.

Generally how that works is they committed a violation of sorts, if it is serious enough to merit termination, the accused will be called in to internal investigators and told that on such and such a day, we will submit the report to the chief. Typically a finding showing you did the thing you are accused of, the chief has in  the past terminated employees for this. Their lawyer will then walk them out and tell them to resign so they don't have a termination and revocation of a certification on their record. this allows them to get employment elsewhere after the dust settles- generally. I have seen this at least 30-40 times and there is usually no connection to whether or not they are eligible to retire.

As for you not seeing how the Wilson reasoning makes any difference??? Well apparently you value your own employment over the physical safety of your long time friends. Cops are different, we are willing to die for our friends and also dont want them to be killed or injured because of our actions. No cop expects you to understand that so I wont ask you to agree with Wilsons rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a weird fixation on your job. You brought up the fact you weren't trained in pretextual phone calls. Your bringing this up implied in my mind that due to your current job,i f it was a valid technique you would know about it.

Quite to the contrary, I was trying to limit my criticism by noting that I am not fully trained in the technique.

I agree...if done by an LE agency or law firm. This was the alleged victim. She can do what she wants with it.

The Salt Lake Tribune of 4/16/16 says the call was done in cooperation with law enforcement.  (“Boss of prosecutor who criticized BYU says school supports rape victims, has not interfered”)

They cared enough to look into it with an unsolicited reporting by Randolph.

BYU didn’t investigate her because she had somehow “sinned” by virtue of being sexually assaulted.  They investigated her because 1) the initial tip suggested she was trying to ruin a man’s life by making a false report to law enforcement; and 2) on doing some research it became clear that immediately before her assault she was voluntarily having sexual relations on her living room couch. 

Already explained re the stealing of a report. He had no business as an LE officer for transferring that report to BYU. Those are strictly need to know only. The suspect could have done that, but he did not.

You’ve alleged BYU of mishandling info from the Spillman database, which I will come back to and which even if true doesn’t conform your lie about the “stolen” report.  And no, Randolph didn’t “steal” the report; Seidu gave it to him. Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy confirmed that as a “special function officer” Randolph was off-clock when he turned the report over to BYU-Title IX and thus was acting as a citizen, not a law enforcement officer.  That’s why, contra the lie you peddled earlier, Randolph was NOT disciplined by his Internal Affairs section for ferrying the report to BYU.

BYU PD detective was sitting right there. He knew they were not supposed to use that report. It was none of of their business. They did it anyway

Source?  My understanding of the 11/23/15 meeting was that it was attended by Randolph, a friend who was also a BYU employee, another friend of his, and BYU Title IX office staff.  Again—the chain of custody for this document came from Seidu himself.

By the way, BYUPD did access the Spillman record of the Provo report per HCO’s request on the day Randolph contacted them.  They did not distribute the written report; they merely orally reported some of the salient details back to HCO.  And one might argue it was very much BYU’s business if a student was trying to perpetrate a financial fraud against the university, which fundamentally is what Barney was doing. 

Why do you think when this came out Provo PD was like how they heck these guys get the police report??? Come to find out BYU had access to the Spillman database. Apparently they are not supposed to so that is under investigation. Additionally, once Provo PD got wind of this they found BYU pd had accessed thousands of their reports for unknown reasons...that will be another juicy finding I am sure. So Provo looks into this and finds out BYU PD accessed the sexual assault report three days prior to Randolph delivering the paper copy to them. Right after Randolph calls them and tells them of the sex assault allegation and wanting to report an honor code violation. 

Provo PD got wind of this because on 11/25/15 BYUHCO calles Barney and asked her to discuss recent alleged honor code violations.  Barney lied and replied that she hadn’t violated the honor code, whereupon she was confronted with the police report provided BYU Randolph two days earlier.  Barney called Provo PD to report witness intimidation and ask how the heck BYU was able to get solid evidence of her deceit.  That was the cause of Detective Webb’s investigation.

BYU’s own chief of police requested in May of 2016 that the state Department of Public Safety audit BYUPD’s use of Spillman records, and Provo PD immediately joined that request.  The investigation was finished in mid-2017 showing that, yes, BYU has accessed reports for over 6,000 cases over an eighteen-month period; and the circumstances behind each and every one of those records being pulled still hadn’t been completely weeded out.   Nearly a year later there have still been no charges and no adverse actions against BYUPD’s Spillman access.

BTW- what adult living in the real world has time or the inclination to report some honor code violation to BYU? 

Apparently, either someone with strong community ties to BYU who doesn’t like the idea of his tithing dollars going to subsidize the education (Provo PD conclusion) or someone with strong community ties to BYU who was concerned about the pattern of exploitation of/by BYU athletes that was alluded to in the report (Utah County Sheriff Internal Affairs and Utah County Attorney’s Office conclusion).  

By the way:  IA cleared Randolph of any wrong-doing vis a vis the report.  The pending investigation was coming from POST, which was accusing him of having lied to the Provo PD regarding his motives for relaying the report.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share