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

[Schreech]

Kids mind : ooh we got to draw and have a party for outing the babysitter and her two friends. let's give other names so we can have another party and draw more pictures...Oh and let's include our dad.

Yet here we are 30 odd years later with 2 girls now accomplished women, who still maintain they were sexually abused by the Miles and by their dad. No rewards, just more trauma, criticism and infamy.

No brainwashing at play here, no recovered memories..just adults who still recall being (allegedly) sexually abused by a group of adults.

[_Mary]

Meadowchik, what would really help is if the other family involved decided to pursue, or even better video or photographic evidence turned up.

I heard those rumours too.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Hi Meadowchick. Utah has what’s called “notice pleading.” The complaint only has to be detailed enough to give the defendants fair notice of what the claims are about. So it’s typical not to disclose evidence in the complaint.

The motion to dismiss is based on the statute of limitations. A statute of limitations sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit. As these claims do not appear to involve repressed memory, the statute at the time required each plaintiff to file suit within four years of turning 18. And based in the information in the complaint, it appears that the deadline passed several years ago.

Plaintiffs will likely argue that Utah recently amended the statute to give child victims of sexual abuse 35 years from turning 18 and the legislature said the law was retroactive. Defendants anticipated this argument, pointing out that there is case law in Utah hurling that, once a claim has been barred by the statute, it cannot be revived by changing the deadline.

The kicker is that this issue went to the Utah Supreme Court in another case, which is awaiting decision. The trial judge in this case may very well wait for the Supreme Court decision before ruling on the motion.

Whatever this new evidence is, I suspect it affects the substance of the claims rather than the statute of limitations. So holding that evidence back shouldn’t affect this motion.

[_Mary]

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.

Hi Meadowchick. Utah has what’s called “notice pleading.” The complaint only has to be detailed enough to give the defendants fair notice of what the claims are about. So it’s typical not to disclose evidence in the complaint.

The motion to dismiss is based on the statute of limitations. A statute of limitations sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit. As these claims do not appear to involve repressed memory, the statute at the time required each plaintiff to file suit within four years of turning 18. And based in the information in the complaint, it appears that the deadline passed several years ago.

Plaintiffs will likely argue that Utah recently amended the statute to give child victims of sexual abuse 35 years from turning 18 and the legislature said the law was retroactive. Defendants anticipated this argument, pointing out that there is case law in Utah hurling that, once a claim has been barred by the statute, it cannot be revived by changing the deadline.

The kicker is that this issue went to the Utah Supreme Court in another case, which is awaiting decision. The trial judge in this case may very well wait for the Supreme Court decision before ruling on the motion.

Whatever this new evidence is, I suspect it affects the substance of the claims rather than the statute of limitations. So holding that evidence back shouldn’t affect this motion.

So glad we have a lawyer here. Thanks so much for your comments. They help. A lot.

[_Res Ipsa]

You’re welcome. I’m happy to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo when I can.

[_Meadowchik]

You’re welcome. I’m happy to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo when I can.

Thank you! Do you recall the name of the case awaiting the Utah SC decision?

[_Res Ipsa]

You’re welcome. I’m happy to clarify the legal mumbo jumbo when I can.

Thank you! Do you recall the name of the case awaiting the Utah SC decision?

Yes, it’s Mitchell v Roberts. It’s a suit against a former US District Court judge. Plaintiff alleges he sexually abused her when she was a witness in a trial against a white supremacist. Oral argument was held back in May.

[_Mary]

Cinepro. I'll respond to this part..

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.

Sex rings and sex abuse can only occur and continue if all the participants can keep it secret.

The case for which I was a juror involved both incest, the father prostituting his children and a sex ring. I would imagine like any criminal activity these people were opportunists. I don't want to give too much away, but needless to say the father was widely trusted, and engaged in voluntary work with children. He was a respected member of the community, looked on as a philanthropist.

[_Mary]

Interestingly the father in the case (I worked on) controlled by violence. Clever violence. Medical records showed numerous broken bones..which of course were explained away..

Bill is keen to tell Marion that physical violence was not his method of choice. It was emotional manipulation based on a perversion of what should be a relationship of ultimate and pure love a parent would normally have for a child.

[_Lemmie]

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.

It doesn't require making the argument that Snow had some supernatural power to explain her involvement.

I thought Res Ipsa, from p 23 of this thread, summed it up quite well:

Just to chime in: the problem that I see here is that the information in the affidavits and the information in the Smith paper can't really be verified as independent. We have testimony in other cases that Snow would tell potential victims about what other alleged victims had said. It's also pretty clear that whatever happened has been discussed within the family over and over until we get the narrative that appears in the Smith paper. Personally, given Smith's role as founder of therapy organization and her status as grandmother of the alleged victims, I would consider her a biased source and would be very cautious about accepting her claims without some independent verification. On the other hand, she draws a pretty good roadmap of how the accusations got started and spread throughout the ward.