Brother of LDS apostle (Christofferson) charged with attempting to sexually exploit children in Utah and Ohio

[Rivendale]

There is a part of this that still baffles me. The charges against the brother did not include physical abuse of the child in Utah, although he confessed to it. I've been assuming that's because the court didn't have jurisdiction over physical abuse that happened in Utah. So why prosecution for communicating over video and not the actual physical abuse? Is the family not cooperating? Somebody talk me down.

I don't understand this either. Is their fear of the church overpowering their decision to protect their own children? Do they not believe their lack of cooperation enables future abuse?

[I Have Questions]

There is a part of this that still baffles me. The charges against the brother did not include physical abuse of the child in Utah, although he confessed to it. I've been assuming that's because the court didn't have jurisdiction over physical abuse that happened in Utah. So why prosecution for communicating over video and not the actual physical abuse? Is the family not cooperating? Somebody talk me down.

I've demonstrated on many occasions that I’m not qualified to talk about how the US legal system works. However, it says (apparently) in the charging documents that he has pleaded guilty to physical sexual in Ohio and Utah. So does that not automatically mean his sentencing will be for both?

[Res Ipsa]

There is a part of this that still baffles me. The charges against the brother did not include physical abuse of the child in Utah, although he confessed to it. I've been assuming that's because the court didn't have jurisdiction over physical abuse that happened in Utah. So why prosecution for communicating over video and not the actual physical abuse? Is the family not cooperating? Somebody talk me down.

I've demonstrated on many occasions that I’m not qualified to talk about how the US legal system works. However, it says (apparently) in the charging documents that he has pleaded guilty to physical sexual in Ohio and Utah. So does that not automatically mean his sentencing will be for both?

I'd have to look at the actual plea agreement. But he was never charged with the physical abuse in Utah. He can't agree to give subject matter jurisdiction to a court that doesn't have it.

ETA: look at how the Trib words it:

Wade S. Christofferson, 73, admitted to sexually abusing two girls in Ohio and Utah, according to plea agreement documents, and he pleaded guilty to coercing and exploiting the Utah girl through sexually explicit letters and phone calls.

He admitted to sexually abusing two girls, but pleaded guilty to coercing and exploiting the Utah girl. Maybe the admissions can be considered in the sentencing. Federal sentencing guidelines are out of my remit.

[I Have Questions]

I'd have to look at the actual plea agreement. But he was never charged with the physical abuse in Utah. He can't agree to give subject matter jurisdiction to a court that doesn't have it.

ETA: look at how the Trib words it:

Wade S. Christofferson, 73, admitted to sexually abusing two girls in Ohio and Utah, according to plea agreement documents, and he pleaded guilty to coercing and exploiting the Utah girl through sexually explicit letters and phone calls.

He admitted to sexually abusing two girls, but pleaded guilty to coercing and exploiting the Utah girl. Maybe the admissions can be considered in the sentencing. Federal sentencing guidelines are out of my remit.

I see that now. Does that still leave him open to be big charged with the physical sexual abuse in Utah? If he isn’t charged with it, does that automatically mean the victims family have decided to not press charges?

[Res Ipsa]

I'd have to look at the actual plea agreement. But he was never charged with the physical abuse in Utah. He can't agree to give subject matter jurisdiction to a court that doesn't have it.

He admitted to sexually abusing two girls, but pleaded guilty to coercing and exploiting the Utah girl. Maybe the admissions can be considered in the sentencing. Federal sentencing guidelines are out of my remit.

I see that now. Does that still leave him open to be big charged with the physical sexual abuse in Utah? If he isn’t charged with it, does that automatically mean the victims family have decided to not press charges?

I think he could still be prosecuted. The family really doesn’t decide whether charges are pressed. But if they don’t cooperate, it’s hard to prosecute.

[I Have Questions]

I see that now. Does that still leave him open to be big charged with the physical sexual abuse in Utah? If he isn’t charged with it, does that automatically mean the victims family have decided to not press charges?

I think he could still be prosecuted. The family really doesn’t decide whether charges are pressed. But if they don’t cooperate, it’s hard to prosecute.

The Church wouldn’t seek to protect Todd Christofferson’s reputation, and its own by association, by “encouraging” the family to drop the matter in Utah, would it?

[Res Ipsa]

I think he could still be prosecuted. The family really doesn’t decide whether charges are pressed. But if they don’t cooperate, it’s hard to prosecute.

The Church wouldn’t seek to protect Todd Christofferson’s reputation, and its own by association, by “encouraging” the family to drop the matter in Utah, would it?

Dunno. Maybe tacking on more time to the jail sentence wasn't worth the trauma to the family. **shrug**

[Gabriel]

What did the first presidency know, and when did they know it? They may not have explicitly signed off on it, but are they likely to have known?

Although the First Presidency may not have been involved in the decision to rebaptize Christofferson, the First Presidency in 1997 had to approve the restoration of Christofferson’s priesthood and temple blessings.

Per pages 10-12 to 10-13 of the 1989 General Handbook of Instructions (pp. 110-111 of the PDF):

1. The bishop was required to fill out an application for restoration of priesthood and temple blessings and to interview the applicant to verify the accuracy of answers to the questions and to verify that the applicant was worthy. I assume that the form requested information on the applicant’s misconduct or crimes.
2. The applicant wrote a letter to the stake president with specific information included.
3. The bishop sought a letter from the applicant’s spouse if the applicant was excommunicated for committing a sexual sin while married.
4. The bishop made a recommendation on the form and forwarded it, along with the other documents, to the stake president.
5. The stake president reviewed the information forwarded to him and interviewed the applicant. If he recommended approval, he obtained approval from his counselors. Once the stake president had made sufficient contact with the applicant and, if necessary, the injured persons, to verify that the applicant had told the truth about relationships with others since the excommunication, he added his recommendation to the application form.
6. The stake president forwarded the application form and associated documents to the Office of the First Presidency.
7. If the First Presidency decided to approve the restoration of blessings, they arranged for the applicant to be interviewed by a church officer assigned by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. (The handbook is silent on the question of which church officers could be assigned to conduct the interview; perhaps a seventy was typically assigned.) if the church officer found the applicant worthy, the applicant’s blessings at the time of the excommunication were restored.

If the protocols were followed, the First Presidency in 1997 must have had some knowledge of Christofferson’s child sexual abuse.

Sorry about the bump. While researching something else, the bolded part of Step 5 jumped out at me. According to Wade Christofferson's timeline on Floodlit, none of his victims or their parents ever mentioned being contacted by a Stake President during the time prior to the restoration of Wade's priesthood/temple blessings, as they should have been. In cases of CSA, this seems to me to be a serious breach of protocol. What am I missing here?

Wade S Christofferson
https://floodlit.org/a/b428/

[I Have Questions]

Although the First Presidency may not have been involved in the decision to rebaptize Christofferson, the First Presidency in 1997 had to approve the restoration of Christofferson’s priesthood and temple blessings.

Per pages 10-12 to 10-13 of the 1989 General Handbook of Instructions (pp. 110-111 of the PDF):

1. The bishop was required to fill out an application for restoration of priesthood and temple blessings and to interview the applicant to verify the accuracy of answers to the questions and to verify that the applicant was worthy. I assume that the form requested information on the applicant’s misconduct or crimes.
2. The applicant wrote a letter to the stake president with specific information included.
3. The bishop sought a letter from the applicant’s spouse if the applicant was excommunicated for committing a sexual sin while married.
4. The bishop made a recommendation on the form and forwarded it, along with the other documents, to the stake president.
5. The stake president reviewed the information forwarded to him and interviewed the applicant. If he recommended approval, he obtained approval from his counselors. Once the stake president had made sufficient contact with the applicant and, if necessary, the injured persons, to verify that the applicant had told the truth about relationships with others since the excommunication, he added his recommendation to the application form.
6. The stake president forwarded the application form and associated documents to the Office of the First Presidency.
7. If the First Presidency decided to approve the restoration of blessings, they arranged for the applicant to be interviewed by a church officer assigned by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. (The handbook is silent on the question of which church officers could be assigned to conduct the interview; perhaps a seventy was typically assigned.) if the church officer found the applicant worthy, the applicant’s blessings at the time of the excommunication were restored.

If the protocols were followed, the First Presidency in 1997 must have had some knowledge of Christofferson’s child sexual abuse.

Sorry about the bump. While researching something else, the bolded part of Step 5 jumped out at me. According to Wade Christofferson's timeline on Floodlit, none of his victims or their parents ever mentioned being contacted by a Stake President during the time prior to the restoration of Wade's priesthood/temple blessings, as they should have been. In cases of CSA, this seems to me to be a serious breach of protocol. What am I missing here?

Wade S Christofferson
https://floodlit.org/a/b428/

You’re missing the carefully crafted caveat “if necessary”.