Nelsons daughter and son-in-law accused of sex abuse

[_Lemmie]

..the Miles motion to dismiss takes a position that the abuse of the Carstensen children was a case of Satanic Ritual Abuse. That then enables a line of reasoning that suggests a timeline back to a moral panic begun by Padzer and continuing into Utah via warned and trained therapists.

Yet SRA is not being suggested in the Carstensen case....

I understand res ipsa's point that the motion to dismiss is not meant to argue against facts alleged on the lawsuit, but the motion does seem to give an indication why they consider this to be so closely related to other cases involving Snow. Just one comment from the motion to dismiss:

...Plaintiffs’ initial accusations are, to use the Utah Supreme Court’s phrase, “strikingly similar,” to accusations made by Dr. Snow’s other patients in other neighborhoods. The accusations originally included many of the same “bizarre” elements including “touching parties,” cannibalism, the murder of children and infants, and animal mutilation.

[_cinepro]

One of the new pieces of information I gleaned from David Eccles Hardy's posts was that the police investigation entailed giving 24 hours notice of a house search to both the Miles and the Carstensen's. More than enough time to ensure the houses are clean of evidence. Personally, I've never heard of the police being so helpful to alleged perpetrators, but along with Snow's discredited methods on some cases, perhaps it was just the way they did things back then (sarcasm).

Okay, not to sound like a broken record, but do you think the Miles stopped having "touching parties" with neighborhood kids once Snow got on the case? Or did the abuse continue for the past 30 years? Because if it's continued, this isn't a historical investigation. There is a couple in Bountiful right now that is abusing neighborhood kids, and the police should go and search their house (without warning) to see if they find anything.

Spoiler alert: as with every other investigation of this sort around the country in the 1980s, I'll bet they wouldn't find anything.

Cinepro and the Miles motion to dismiss takes a position that the abuse of the Carstensen children was a case of Satanic Ritual Abuse. That then enables a line of reasoning that suggests a timeline back to a moral panic begun by Padzer and continuing into Utah via warned and trained therapists.

Yet SRA is not being suggested in the Carstensen case, and Cinepro would have to be clear on what constitutes SRA and then explain why many elements of SRA according to his definition do not infact appear in the Miles case.

I'm mystified by the distinction that is trying to be made. Why doesn't Marion Smith's account contain additional accusations against the Miles that actually mention "Satan" or the more gruesome aspects of these cases (people getting sewn into corpses, babies being murdered, animals being tortured)? I don't know. Edit to add: there is a story of a kitten being killed by Brother Miles, so the story was heading in that direction.

Maybe Snow just didn't get to that part of her script in the counseling sessions. Maybe the kids' imaginations just didn't go there. Maybe there wasn't enough time before it hit the fan and the counseling sessions stopped. Why were only the Carstensens and the Miles (and the teenagers) accused and not dozens of others like in Lehi? Who knows?

I suspect if we had full documentation on what was said in the kids' therapy sessions the answer would be much clearer. But sadly, those notes don't exist.

We know, I think, that Barbara Snow met with the Carstensen girls twice sometime in January, where on the 2nd meeting they both disclosed the abuse of Janice and two male accomplices. No SRA, just a babysitter engaging in sex play with the kids. That wasn't disproved. The babysitter later committed suicide and Smith engaged with the parents and told them to get the child (16) therapy. They had no intention of bringing charges against her.

No, we don't know that. I don't know why this is so difficult. At the first meeting with Snow, she said they were fine. Then the mom mentioned the kids had the same babysitter that had already been accused in the Bullock case. This prompts Snow to interview the kids for two hours, until they finally accused the babysitter as well.

Then:

After many appointments, the children had revealed that Janice sometimes brought two teen-age boys to join in her sex play with them. They told of terrible acts. After about two months of therapy, we had a “hero’s” party for our grandchildren.

As our grandchildren’s therapy continued, the circle of perpetrators widened to include Dick and Brenda Miles.

(Emphasis added)

I know that accusers of the Miles have to do everything they can to minimize the involvement of Dr. Snow and the connection to the Bullock and Hadfield cases, but Marion Smith sticks Snow right in the middle of it because she totally believed Snow was doing the right thing.

Back to Snow. We know she met twice with the girls in January of 1986. Hardy also informs us the girls also met with other therapists. So Snow is a part player in this among a field of therapists. In a 3 to 6 week window, one of the girls disclosed to her mother the abuse of the Miles and then the abuse of the father. Hardy confirms this through the Mother and Snow, who knew nothing about the Miles. The suggestion categorically didn't come from her.

So, I can understand why the Miles team would want to include this case wholely under the category of SRA and Snow, but the case is much more complicated than that.

It will be interesting to see the documentation Hardy has to back this up. As I said, I understand the desperation to steer the narrative away from Snow, but if Marion Smith's timeline is at all accurate, the case doesn't look good.

I suspect (predict?) the case against the Miles will die because of the contamination of the interviews with Snow and the total lack of any corroborating evidence.

[_Res Ipsa]

Although the motion discusses SRA as background, the motion to dismiss is based solely on the statute of limitations. Because it is a motion to dismiss, it cannot dispute the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.

Interesting. I assume that's because disputing facts alleged in the complaint is reserved for arguing against, not for a request to dismiss? How long would it typically take to get a ruling on the motion to dismiss, which I assume has to happen first?

To win on a motion to dismiss, the moving party must treat everything in the complaint as true. In this case, the defendants are arguing: Even if every fact alleged in the complaint is true, the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. It’s basically a test of the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

ETA: The time it takes to get a ruling varies, but I’d expect the judge to rule within two weeks. I don’t think the issues are especially complex. If the motion is denied, then the parties will start with discovery.

[_Lemmie]

Although the motion discusses SRA as background, the motion to dismiss is based solely on the statute of limitations. Because it is a motion to dismiss, it cannot dispute the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.

Interesting. I assume that's because disputing facts alleged in the complaint is reserved for arguing against, not for a request to dismiss? How long would it typically take to get a ruling on the motion to dismiss, which I assume has to happen first?

To win on a motion to dismiss, the moving party must treat everything in the complaint as true. In this case, the defendants are arguing: Even if every fact alleged in the complaint is true, the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. It’s basically a test of the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Thank you for that information. It brings up another issue, if you don't mind the question: the motion to dismiss contains so much background material, and considerable argument against the alleged facts. I understand now that none of that would be relevant to this motion to dismiss on grounds that the statute of limitations has run out, so why include it? Is it meant to signal something to someone, or does it have some other strategic value?

[_Res Ipsa]

..the Miles motion to dismiss takes a position that the abuse of the Carstensen children was a case of Satanic Ritual Abuse. That then enables a line of reasoning that suggests a timeline back to a moral panic begun by Padzer and continuing into Utah via warned and trained therapists.

Yet SRA is not being suggested in the Carstensen case....

I understand res ipsa's point that the motion to dismiss is not meant to argue against facts alleged on the lawsuit, but the motion does seem to give an indication why they consider this to be so closely related to other cases involving Snow. Just one comment from the motion to dismiss:

...Plaintiffs’ initial accusations are, to use the Utah Supreme Court’s phrase, “strikingly similar,” to accusations made by Dr. Snow’s other patients in other neighborhoods. The accusations originally included many of the same “bizarre” elements including “touching parties,” cannibalism, the murder of children and infants, and animal mutilation.

Yes. The defendants are using the motion to introduce the judge to their theory of the case. It’s not the actual basis of the motion, but “educating” the judge is an important part of motion practice.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thank you for that information. It brings up another issue, if you don't mind the question: the motion to dismiss contains so much background material, and considerable argument against the alleged facts. I understand now that none of that would be relevant to this motion to dismiss on grounds that the statute of limitations has run out, so why include it? Is it meant to signal something to someone, or does it have some other strategic value?

I don’t mind at all. Both sides want to educate the judge on their theory of the case. It helps to have the judge thinking about the case the same way you do. Think of it as “working the refs.” You’ll see the plaintiffs do something similar when they file their response.

[_Lemmie]

Thank you for that information. It brings up another issue, if you don't mind the question: the motion to dismiss contains so much background material, and considerable argument against the alleged facts. I understand now that none of that would be relevant to this motion to dismiss on grounds that the statute of limitations has run out, so why include it? Is it meant to signal something to someone, or does it have some other strategic value?

I don’t mind at all. Both sides want to educate the judge on their theory of the case. It helps to have the judge thinking about the case the same way you do. Think of it as “working the refs.” You’ll see the plaintiffs do something similar when they file their response.

Thank you again, that's very interesting. Looking at it from the outside, I have to say then that the motion to dismiss from the defendants was very persuasive. It was extremely thorough and well researched. in my opinion, the plaintiffs have some serious hurtles to get past to make a current case that's not irreparably damaged by the connection to the earlier cases, as established by that motion.

[_Lemmie]

I'm mystified by the distinction that is trying to be made. Why doesn't Marion Smith's account contain additional accusations against the Miles that actually mention "Satan" or the more gruesome aspects of these cases (people getting sewn into corpses, babies being murdered, animals being tortured)? I don't know. Edit to add: there is a story of a kitten being killed by Brother Miles, so the story was heading in that direction.

Re: whether this case is related to the ritual abuse cases Snow was involved with, I thought these two footnotes from the motion to dismiss made some interesting points:

The Alleged Bountiful Satanic, Ritualistic Sex Abuse Ring

It was after meeting with Dr. Snow that children began levelling accusations against members of the neighborhood in July 1985. After multiple “therapy” sessions with Dr. Snow, Plaintiffs eventually accused the babysitter, her friends, their father, their paternal grandmother, her friends, and several neighbors of Satanic ritual abuse. *32

*Footnote 32:
It is clear from Dr. Snow’s journal article that this ring was “Satanic” in nature. Years later, presumably because SRA had been debunked, Dr. Snow’s story changed to remove the Satanic elements.

I know I posted the first paragraph before, but the associated footnote is extremely relevant:

....“strikingly similar,” to accusations made by Dr. Snow’s other patients in other neighborhoods. The accusations originally included many of the same “bizarre” elements including “touching parties,” cannibalism, the murder of children and infants, and animal mutilation. *33


* footnote 33:

It appears that Plaintiffs’ counsel has “scrubbed” from the Complaint the Satanic and most bizarre aspects of the original allegations. But Dr. Snow’s own article clearly states the presence of those allegations in the original versions of the story.

[_Mary]

I agree that the motion to dismiss emphasises the role of Snow and SRA. Absolutely. I'm not sure I follow the motions line of reasoning.

Lemmie, you have access to the relevant Snow article. I very frustratingly do not.

What specific part ties the Carstensen children themselves to bizarre rituals? Or are the Miles lawyers assuming that the Miles case should be included in the Bullock (or Hadfield) sphere? Bullock was convicted of abusing his kids, and his attempts to overturn the case never bore fruit.

Hardy has argued that this is not a case of SRA. That's why I am pushing for a definition. What must SRA include to define it as such and do any of the children's journal writings of the time suggest they were being asked to worship Satan or the like.

Also, Hardy tells us that the children were seen by a number of therapists not just Snow. So she is a bit player in this.

Cinepro disagrees with me but I am stating that the children saw Snow twice in January and before Feb 13th, of 1986, because that's all we definitely know, even by reading Smith's account which is *ambiguous*.

We know now for sure that the witnesses are claiming that the older of the Carstensen daughters disclosed the alleged involvement of the Miles and Bill, outside of therapy, so one would have to make the argument that Snow was so good at brainwashing and rewarding the children that she was able to influence the children through ESP which is even more bizarre imho.

How does it work? How does Snow get to brainwash these children so thoroughly that they can come up with names when she is not around. I don't find Cinepro's arguments persuasive at all.

[_Meadowchik]

Res Ipsa,

If the plaintiffs have new, compelling evidence, could it be normal to withhold it from the initial complaint? And, if so, could it be relevant or admissable in a response to the motion to dismiss?

I'm not sure how close the "insiders" were, but when this first broke, people close to Vernon were implying new, compelling evidence. Everything in the complaint seems to be older, known material, so I would naturally worry that poorly-concieved delay in presenting new evidence could stop the case before it gets started.