Smac97 Gets Called Out On His Fabricated Tale On MD&D

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I just read the thread and it's a great example of the hypocrisy, defensiveness, insecurity and tribalism that is typically on display at MD&D.

I can't believe they banned Stem. His comments were calm, professional and insightful.

MD&D can't be good for the Church. It's a microcosm of why the Church is struggling on so many different fronts right now.

[_Madison54]

I just read the thread and it's a great example of the hypocrisy, defensiveness, insecurity and tribalism that is typically on display at MD&D.

So true. And bluebell is still coming to smac's defense. How embarrassing for her. How about she just expects him to respond and speak for himself like she nitpicks and hammers other posters to death over when they refuse to respond

Smac has really gotten smacked around for that story though and he's hiding behind the skirts of bluebell and Calm and is refusing to respond. Pretty funny to watch.

[_Stem]

Holy crap. I went back and read the exchanged between Smac and Exiled. That was ridiculous. that they banned Exiled was absurd. A huge pile of crazy happened over there, didn't it? It'll be funny as they all will continue on as if they didn't go crazy, and pretend they are as credible as ever.

Smac says:

You are publicly criticizing the survivor of a sexual assault. You are publicly calling her "weak." You are publicly accusing her of lacking courage. Because her chosen response to her assault does not comport with your expectations.

What an enormous goon. yet Smac has taken the liberty, along with other posters, to accuse Ms Denson of many things, and that is public. and that is personal, and everyone whose been following it has known her name.

In truth Smac's story has no place in that thread. The anonymous lady may not be over it any more than any other survivor of sexual assault. We don't know that. Smac can't consider himself qualified to judge that. The story is just a nonsense aside, and is probably not a true representation of what went on.

[_Lemmie]

I just read the thread and it's a great example of the hypocrisy, defensiveness, insecurity and tribalism that is typically on display at MD&D.

So true. And bluebell is still coming to smac's defense. How embarrassing for her. How about she just expects him to respond and speak for himself like she nitpicks and hammers other posters to death over when they refuse to respond

Smac has really gotten smacked around for that story though and he's hiding behind the skirts of bluebell and Calm and is refusing to respond. Pretty funny to watch.

As Stem pointed out in the MD&D thread, an apparently new poster, pressured not only to provide a cfr but retract his statement if his cfr wasn't considered sufficient, was told this:

Because you're new I want to make sure you understand what will happen if you just leave the thread but don't answer the CFR. You'll probably be banned from the entire board, which may not be what you want to have happen.

and then this:

You will be banned if you refuse to admit you made a mistake and do what you can to remedy it.

but now smac's refusal to answer his CFR gets this:

Smac said that he would not be talking about that issue again because of the accusations that Exile made. Given that, there's probably nothing else to say about it and it should probably be dropped as a topic.

The other poster wasn't given the option of dropping the topic when people made "accusations", so why does smac get to hide behind that? If you literally post exactly opposite moderator policies for people, it's difficult to imagine moderation is done fairly.

sidenote: Calm really needs to pretend better if she is going to keep insisting she is not a mod!

[_Dr Exiled]

but now smac's refusal to answer his CFR gets this:

Smac said that he would not be talking about that issue again because of the accusations that Exile made. Given that, there's probably nothing else to say about it and it should probably be dropped as a topic.

Team TBM/Fair shall not be questioned. They are the ones who do the questioning. Anyway, Smack97 is probably too busy creating other whoppers to respond to questions about his invented silent victim story. Here is what he said:

I have an attorney friend who had a client (also a personal friend) who was sexually assaulted by a member of the Church. There was pretty solid forensic evidence. The prosecutor initially pressed felony charges, but then let the case drag, and ultimately dropped the charges. The client was initially very upset, but decided she wants to proceed with her life. So she's letting it go. No civil suit. Just moving on.

My friend spoke with the client's mother (in his capacity as a friend, rather than an attorney) about whether the client has considered reporting the sexual assault to the Church. He suggested that notifying the Church might reduce the risk of the perp assaulting someone else. The answer came back: No, she wants to get on with life.

Should we second-guess this woman? Ignore her wishes? Fault her for how she has decided to proceed? No. Not at all. There is no script, no correct answer. We cannot walk in her shoes, nor can we dictate to her what is the "right" response to what happened to her.

What I would have done doesn't matter. Not here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sexual assault is a serious matter that a prosecutor wouldn't just let drag or drop, unless the evidence was weak or unless the prosecutor made a serious mistake. However, Smac97 says there was pretty solid forensic evidence in his scenario, yet no conviction, no plea bargain, and the charges were dropped. So, it was due to prosecutor laziness? That simply doesn't make any sense where prosecutors have superiors that look at these cases and the elected District Attorney wouldn't want someone to simply drop the ball in such a serious matter. Who was the prosecutor? Was he/she fired for the obvious misconduct? What county and state? Smac97 is an attorney in Utah County, was it there? More church cover-up here to influence the silent victim to remain silent? Let us know so we can verify this story Smac97. The silent victim need not be unmasked this way. However, I suspect that this information won't be forthcoming any time soon. I probably should have CFR'ed Smac97 but as is pointed out above, the CFR process over there is extremely one-sided and silly to even use against the protected ones.

[_Madison54]

Here is what he said:

I have an attorney friend who had a client (also a personal friend) who was sexually assaulted by a member of the Church. There was pretty solid forensic evidence. The prosecutor initially pressed felony charges, but then let the case drag, and ultimately dropped the charges. The client was initially very upset, but decided she wants to proceed with her life. So she's letting it go. No civil suit. Just moving on.

My friend spoke with the client's mother (in his capacity as a friend, rather than an attorney) about whether the client has considered reporting the sexual assault to the Church. He suggested that notifying the Church might reduce the risk of the perp assaulting someone else. The answer came back: No, she wants to get on with life.

Should we second-guess this woman? Ignore her wishes? Fault her for how she has decided to proceed? No. Not at all. There is no script, no correct answer. We cannot walk in her shoes, nor can we dictate to her what is the "right" response to what happened to her.

What I would have done doesn't matter. Not here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Heh. The part I put in bold is so incredibly funny for him to ask. This is exactly what he's been doing right and left to Mckenna Denson. Talk about attacking the victim. What a huge hypocrite he is (and so are Calm and bluebell for supporting him and following suit.)

[_Stem]

Calm's latest post:

What about the absence of any of that by Denson? She obviously intentionally didn't share the information about Monson in the tape and there was no mention of her meeting with Monson in any of the public interviews. Did she not participate in the coverup as much as the police?

Now McKenna herself is to be blamed for the coverup?

[_Dr Exiled]

Heh. The part I put in bold is so incredibly funny for him to ask. This is exactly what he's been doing right and left to Mckenna Denson. Talk about attacking the victim. What a huge hypocrite he is (and so are Calm and bluebell for supporting him and following suit.)

I called him out at some point on the bold portion above. He actually admitted that he questioned each and every facet of Dennison's story but somehow wasn't questioning her decision to speak out. I got banned before I could explore this part of his hypocrisy.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I have an attorney friend who had a client (also a personal friend) who was sexually assaulted by a member of the Church. There was pretty solid forensic evidence. The prosecutor initially pressed felony charges, but then let the case drag, and ultimately dropped the charges. The client was initially very upset, but decided she wants to proceed with her life. So she's letting it go. No civil suit. Just moving on.

My friend spoke with the client's mother (in his capacity as a friend, rather than an attorney) about whether the client has considered reporting the sexual assault to the Church. He suggested that notifying the Church might reduce the risk of the perp assaulting someone else. The answer came back: No, she wants to get on with life.

Should we second-guess this woman? Ignore her wishes? Fault her for how she has decided to proceed? No. Not at all. There is no script, no correct answer. We cannot walk in her shoes, nor can we dictate to her what is the "right" response to what happened to her.

What I would have done doesn't matter. Not here.

Thanks,

-Smac

The thing that I have trouble believing is that a member of the Church was involved in a drawn out felony case, and there was a need to notify the Church because they somehow were not already aware.

If I were to fart while backpacking alone in Tibet, it would somehow get brought up in a Bishopric meeting.

[_Dr Exiled]

Calm's latest post:

What about the absence of any of that by Denson? She obviously intentionally didn't share the information about Monson in the tape and there was no mention of her meeting with Monson in any of the public interviews. Did she not participate in the coverup as much as the police?

Now McKenna herself is to be blamed for the coverup?

They are grasping at straws and are heading into a pure nonsense area with the above.