Martha Beck: FARMS reviews sexual abuse claims

[_Rollo Tomasi]

She claimed that he molested her on multiple occasions over a three-year period, usually at night.

While she was asleep.

Regards,
Pahoran

Did she say that she remained asleep? If so, that would certainly indicate that these were false recovered memories.

She did not. The book certainly gives the impression that Martha was wide awake (but that her younger sister, and roommate, was asleep).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The issue is not just that she was molested. The issue is that she was molested by a neighbour boy, AND she suppressed that fact from her nov--er, her "memoir," DESPITE THE FACT that it may well account for ALL of the other things that she chooses to lay at her father's door.

In an interview on Good Morning America in 2005 (when she was promoting the book), Martha said that when she was 9, a teenage neighbor barricaded her in his room, stripped most of her clothes off and sexually assaulted her. Martha added that he did not penetrate her vagina, and that she was saved when Hugh walked in on them (he was also at the house at the time). Martha explained that the incident was cut from the book during editing in order to shorten the book.

Frankly, I agree that the incident was serious enough (and relevant to the main theme) that it should have been included in the book.

EDITED TO ADD: Does anyone know if the Nibleys reported this incident to the Provo police? If Hugh did walk in on the assault and saved his daughter, then it's likely he called the cops (at least that is what I would do if I caught someone molesting my kid). If so, then there should be a police report confirming what happened (i.e., whether there was penetration, etc.).

[_Pahoran]

But this is not about "feelings;" Martha described, in detail, a specific practice: the neighbours came out of the houses and "showed us their backs" until the Becks were out of sight. Mura hachibu, expulsion from the village.

I agree that Martha's use of mura hachibu may be hyperbole, but at the same time perhaps that was the best way Martha could use to describe how she felt. She clearly felt that she and John were being "shunned," so she used a phrase that best described that to her (even if not with clinical accuracy).

But she's a Harvard-trained, PhD-wielding sociologist with a "love affair with evidence." Can't she observe group behaviour with any degree of accuracy?

But it was her idea to tell the story the way she did, with the intent to show that BYU -- and by extension, the Church -- had rigorously and thoroughly censored Sonia Johnson's information out of existence.

I took it to simply be how she felt when she couldn't find anything. It was her subjective conclusion. She may have been wrong due to sloppy research, but to her she was looking for something controversial that she could not find, and concluded that BYU had intentionally censored material about Sonia Johnson. Again, this is her point of view since it's her story.

And here is what she actually said, as quoted by Kent Jackson:

Not a single reference to [Sonia Johnson] showed up on the library's retrieval system. Puzzled, I checked the references I'd gotten from books, the ones that quoted specific articles in major newspapers. I found the correct papers, dates, and page numbers, then scrutinized the microfilm screens with the care of an art restorer examining a painting. And what I found, while insignificant in the scheme of things, troubled me just a bit.

The articles were simply missing.

All of them.

Someone in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print. Whatever splash she'd made in the non-Mormon world, in the microcosm that was the Lord's University, it was as though nothing about Johnson . . . had ever existed at all. (p. 83)

So, she doesn't just say anything equivalent to, "I looked but couldn't find anything." She "found the correct papers, dates, and page numbers." So she knew where to look. She found the relevant editions. Then she "scrutinized the microfilm screens with the care of an art restorer examining a painting."

And what was the result?

"The articles were simply missing."

Not "I couldn't find them." And indeed, given her meticulous description of her meticulous search, that hardly seems likely; if they were there, she would have found them. No, they were "simply missing."

Except they weren't.

Come on, Rollo. You're a lawyer; do you do trial work? How hard would it be for any competent barrister to shred her on cross-examination? If it smells like a five-day-old fish and it looks like a five-day-old fish, what conclusion would you expect a jury to reach?

BYU is discharged as having no case to answer.

Nobody "in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print."

Nobody.

It didn't happen.

If you want to defend her by saying that she simply was sloppy in her research, I'll accept that; because it means you are conceding that her accusation against BYU was not true.

Frankly, I don't know one way or the other. I don't have enough evidence to conclude that she was wrong in her conclusion when she did the search in 1992 or so.

Well, you might not; but a jury untainted by your prejudices does.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Did she say that she remained asleep? If so, that would certainly indicate that these were false recovered memories.

She did not. The book certainly gives the impression that Martha was wide awake (but that her younger sister, and roommate, was asleep).

Actually both of her sisters were her roomates at the time. One of them (I think the elder) was a notoriously light sleeper, while her younger sister was in the bottom bunk, directly beneath the one on which Martha was allegedly being molested.

But no-one ever woke up or asked any innocent questions the next morning at the breakfast table.

The issue is not just that she was molested. The issue is that she was molested by a neighbour boy, AND she suppressed that fact from her nov--er, her "memoir," DESPITE THE FACT that it may well account for ALL of the other things that she chooses to lay at her father's door.

In an interview on Good Morning America in 2005 (when she was promoting the book), Martha said that when she was 9, a teenage neighbor barricaded her in his room, stripped most of her clothes off and sexually assaulted her. Martha added that he did not penetrate her vagina, and that she was saved when Hugh walked in on them (he was also at the house at the time). Martha explained that the incident was cut from the book during editing in order to shorten the book.

Okay, so this story was given in response to criticism her nov -- er, "memoir" had already received. I'd be much happier with these details if we'd learned them de novo.

And how does she thank her father for his intervention? By attacking him in print.

On the subject of the alleged scarring: this is a detail that could be corroborated, but so far has not. And if it seems a little indelicate to expect a woman to submit to a gynaecological examination to test her story, let us remember that it is she who chose to introduce this detail into evidence.

She had a number of gynaecological exams before her marriage, but no-one seems to have mentioned the scars then. That she has scars now, after delivering three children vaginally would hardly seem surprising.

Frankly, I agree that the incident was serious enough (and relevant to the main theme) that it should have been included in the book.

Thank you for that.

EDITED TO ADD: Does anyone know if the Nibleys reported this incident to the Provo police? If Hugh did walk in on the assault and saved his daughter, then it's likely he called the cops (at least that is what I would do if I caught someone molesting my kid). If so, then there should be a police report confirming what happened (i.e., whether there was penetration, etc.).

No idea. Was that the normal way of doing things in the early 1970's? As I understand it, the procedures for handling sexual assault victims were pretty brutal back then. A father who had managed to prevent an actual rape (if that was how it happened) might prefer to spare his daughter further trauma.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I agree that Martha's use of mura hachibu may be hyperbole, but at the same time perhaps that was the best way Martha could use to describe how she felt. She clearly felt that she and John were being "shunned," so she used a phrase that best described that to her (even if not with clinical accuracy).

But she's a Harvard-trained, PhD-wielding sociologist with a "love affair with evidence." Can't she observe group behaviour with any degree of accuracy?

Sure, when someone else is the target, but we all lose objectivity when we become the target.

And here is what she actually said:

Not a single reference to [Sonia Johnson] showed up on the library's retrieval system. Puzzled, I checked the references I'd gotten from books, the ones that quoted specific articles in major newspapers. I found the correct papers, dates, and page numbers, then scrutinized the microfilm screens with the care of an art restorer examining a painting. And what I found, while insignificant in the scheme of things, troubled me just a bit.

The articles were simply missing.

All of them.

Someone in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print. Whatever splash she'd made in the non-Mormon world, in the microcosm that was the Lord's University, it was as though nothing about Johnson . . . had ever existed at all. (p. 83)

So, she doesn't just say anything equivalent to, "I looked but couldn't find anything." She "found the correct papers, dates, and page numbers." So she knew where to look. She found the relevant editions. Then she "scrutinized the microfilm screens with the care of an art restorer examining a painting."

And what was the result?

"The articles were simply missing."

Not "I couldn't find them." And indeed, given her meticulous description of her meticulous search, that hardly seems likely; if they were there, she would have found them. No, they were "simply missing."

Except they weren't.

The problem is we just don't know. Her book is very vague about what sources she was looking up. We know she looked up newspaper cites she got from books, but we know neither the books nor the newspapers. She was there less than 2 hours so she must not have looked at that many sources (my days of working with microfiche remind me that dealing with such resources is very slow going). And this happened in 1992 or so, under conditions we simply can't reconstruct today (as far as I know).

How hard would it be for any competent barrister to shred her on cross-examination?

I don't think we can use the comparison of legal proceedings to impeach her book. If this were a case that went to trial, a lot of effort would be expended to find out the details of what she wrote. All we have is her book, which is extremely subjective and focuses on her feelings and perspective as only she experienced them. "Feelings" and "perspective" simply can't be tested like objective facts. I still honestly believe she is convinced that what she wrote actually happened to her. Whether they actually did, in my opinion, we'll never know.

Nobody "in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print."

Nobody.

It didn't happen.

I don't think we'll ever know. BYU certainly wouldn't admit it if it did, in my opinion.

Well, you might not; but a jury untainted by your prejudices does.

My "prejudices"? I think I've been very open in my belief we'll never know if Hugh did it or not. I hope he didn't, and have reasons to think he didn't, but I don't think I (or anyone else) will ever know one way or the other. I will say this: in terms of what Martha writes with which I do have personal familiarity, she comes across as very accurate to me. For example, her description of the temple ordinances and ceremonies is spot-on, in my experience.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

She did not. The book certainly gives the impression that Martha was wide awake (but that her younger sister, and roommate, was asleep).

Actually both of her sisters were her roomates at the time. One of them (I think the elder) was a notoriously light sleeper, while her younger sister was in the bottom bunk, directly beneath the one on which Martha was allegedly being molested.

I could be wrong, but I thought Martha only identified her younger sister as the roommate during the time of the abuse.

But no-one ever woke up or asked any innocent questions the next morning at the breakfast table.

I don't find this surprising, since the roommate(s) was, according to Martha, unaware.

Okay, so this story was given in response to criticism her nov -- er, "memoir" had already received. I'd be much happier with these details if we'd learned them de novo.

I agree. I think the story should have been included in the book.

And how does she thank her father for his intervention? By attacking him in print.

But if Hugh really did it (as I'm certain Martha believes), then he deserves no such pass.

On the subject of the alleged scarring: this is a detail that could be corroborated, but so far has not. And if it seems a little indelicate to expect a woman to submit to a gynaecological examination to test her story, let us remember that it is she who chose to introduce this detail into evidence.

Back when all this controversy came up, and the family at least seemed to be on the verge of filing a lawsuit (setting up a "defense fund" and all that), I was hoping such a legal proceeding would force this very type of corroboration. But the suit was never filed and that was the end of that ....

She had a number of gynaecological exams before her marriage, but no-one seems to have mentioned the scars then. That she has scars now, after delivering three children vaginally would hardly seem surprising.

In her book I got the impression that she first received such an exam when she was a 17-year old college freshman at Harvard, and the doc (after her inspecting her 'down there') was incredulous when she claimed to be a virgin. Of course, the doc was incredulous because it was obvious from his exam that she was no longer a virgin.

EDITED TO ADD: Does anyone know if the Nibleys reported this incident to the Provo police? If Hugh did walk in on the assault and saved his daughter, then it's likely he called the cops (at least that is what I would do if I caught someone molesting my kid). If so, then there should be a police report confirming what happened (i.e., whether there was penetration, etc.).

No idea. Was that the normal way of doing things in the early 1970's? As I understand it, the procedures for handling sexual assault victims were pretty brutal back then. A father who had managed to prevent an actual rape (if that was how it happened) might prefer to spare his daughter further trauma.

I had hoped that a lawsuit would have uncovered this as well.

[_Pahoran]

I still honestly believe she is convinced that what she wrote actually happened to her. Whether they actually did, in my opinion, we'll never know.

QFT. That may be the most intelligent remark made in this thread.

But then you let yourself down with:

Nobody "in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print."

Nobody.

It didn't happen.

I don't think we'll ever know. BYU certainly wouldn't admit it if it did, in my opinion.

And, oddly enough, neither would they admit it if it didn't. BYU's non-admission does not support her claims.

And we are still left to suppose that there might be something to the absurd picture that "Someone in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print" before Martha's search, and then subsequently, someone else -- or maybe the same someone -- "spent an enormous amount of time and effort to" seamlessly restore "every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print."

Why -- just so Martha wouldn't find them?

Now just how believable is that, really?

Well, you might not; but a jury untainted by your prejudices does.

My "prejudices"? I think I've been very open in my belief we'll never know if Hugh did it or not. I hope he didn't, and have reasons to think he didn't, but I don't think I (or anyone else) will ever know one way or the other. I will say this: in terms of what Martha writes with which I do have personal familiarity, she comes across as very accurate to me. For example, her description of the temple ordinances and ceremonies is spot-on, in my experience.

And the silly "ankle hair as pubic hair" folklore as the official reason for the BYU sock policy "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The panel discussion in which she participated, including four (actually three) participants in which the non-existent "mid-level church leader" blamed the victims of child abuse (no he didn't, because he wasn't there) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The male ladies' hairdresser who demands to call Martha's husband to get his "permission" to give her a haircut (because male ladies' hairdressers are just so very conservative, you know) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The students nodding sagely when a male student in a class she taught told her that he would always know better than her because he held the Priesthood (why was the almost certainly ficticious jerk even in the class, if that was what he really thought) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The "wiretapping" of her phone by crossing the phone lines at a junction box in the nearby LDS meetinghouse -- the existence of the junction box in an LDS meetinghouse -- "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The claim that Danites are actively murdering people in Utah "comes across as very accurate to" you?

The claim that she wondered if Ruth Killpack might have been related to Heber J. Grant because of the shared surname "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Is there anything that Martha could say, in the line of sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ, that would not "come across as very accurate to" you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Actually both of her sisters were her roomates at the time. One of them (I think the elder) was a notoriously light sleeper, while her younger sister was in the bottom bunk, directly beneath the one on which Martha was allegedly being molested.

I could be wrong, but I thought Martha only identified her younger sister as the roommate during the time of the abuse.

Martha may have; but there were three sisters, and there were only three bedrooms in the house; and the other sisters remember that all three of them shared.

Did Martha really overlook her older sister? Hmmm, I wonder why...?

And how does she thank her father for his intervention? By attacking him in print.

But if Hugh really did it (as I'm certain Martha believes), then he deserves no such pass.

I agree; If...

She had a number of gynaecological exams before her marriage, but no-one seems to have mentioned the scars then. That she has scars now, after delivering three children vaginally would hardly seem surprising.

In her book I got the impression that she first received such an exam when she was a 17-year old college freshman at Harvard, and the doc (after her inspecting her 'down there') was incredulous when she claimed to be a virgin. Of course, the doc was incredulous because it was obvious from his exam that she was no longer a virgin.

"Of course." It couldn't possibly be because she was a college age woman who was engaged to be married.

Well, could it?

According to Boyd Peterson:

However, John [Beck, her ex-husband] states that at the time of her premarital exam performed at Harvard, "Martha never claimed the doctor saw scars. He just asked what kind of contraception she'd been using up to that point. When she said she wasn't having sex, he gave her a disbelieving look." This could be simply because he could not believe that she was not sexually active since she was of college age and engaged to be married. And in a later exam, a Provo doctor not only did not notice scars, but he warned Martha to start "loosening up" so that sexual intercourse would not be uncomfortable.

"Of course?" How about "maybe?"

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And we are still left to suppose that there might be something to the absurd picture that "Someone in the BYU library had spent an enormous amount of time and effort to excise every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print" before Martha's search, and then subsequently, someone else -- or maybe the same someone -- "spent an enormous amount of time and effort to" seamlessly restore "every single reference to Sonia Johnson that had ever appeared in print."

Why -- just so Martha wouldn't find them?

Now just how believable is that, really?

This is just my perspective, for what little it's worth, but I would not be surprised if BYU removed or censored material it did not like. We don't have enough details from Martha's book to do a scientific test of the veracity of her claims in this regard, so we'll never know. I'm just saying such behavior at BYU would not surprise me.

And the silly "ankle hair as pubic hair" folklore as the official reason for the BYU sock policy "comes across as very accurate to" you?

I heard about that at BYU, and always considered it folklore as opposed to official policy, but so many things in the Honor/Dress code seemed so stupid (like men having to wear socks, while women did not) that I may have believed it if someone told me it was official policy. This may be another example of hyperbole where Martha was trying to get a laugh more than anything else.

The panel discussion in which she participated, including four (actually three) participants in which the non-existent "mid-level church leader" blamed the victims of child abuse (no he didn't, because he wasn't there) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

I honestly know nothing about this, as I wasn't there, so I only have the book to go on. Although I do recall BKP once referring to abuse as "the first semester of first grade" (or something like that), which I found incredibly insensitive. Blaming the victims of child abuse, in my opinion, would not be much of a stretch from what BKP said.

The male ladies' hairdresser who demands to call Martha's husband to get his "permission" to give her a haircut (because male ladies' hairdressers are just so very conservative, you know) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Actually, this comes across as very believable to me. An example: shortly after women were once again allowed to give prayers in sacrament meeting, I remember one priesthood holder leaving the meeting whenever a woman got up to offer a prayer. Let's face it, there are some priesthood holders who are nuts and do have a problem with "unrighteous dominion" (a big enough problem for there to be scripture about it).

The students nodding sagely when a male student in a class she taught told her that he would always know better than her because he held the Priesthood (why was the almost certainly ficticious jerk even in the class, if that was what he really thought) "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Absolutely. I've interacted with nuts like this before. They exist.

The "wiretapping" of her phone by crossing the phone lines at a junction box in the nearby LDS meetinghouse -- the existence of the junction box in an LDS meetinghouse -- "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Absolutely, ever since I found out about the SCMC.

The claim that Danites are actively murdering people in Utah "comes across as very accurate to" you?

No, but Martha's book (as I read it) did not seem to make this literal; nevertheless, there are always those on the fringe (the Lafferty brothers come to mind) who may take blood atonement a bit too literally.

The claim that she wondered if Ruth Killpack might have been related to Heber J. Grant because of the shared surname "comes across as very accurate to" you?

Martha has denied that Killpack was the "Rachel Grant" referenced in the book.

Is there anything that Martha could say, in the line of sticking it to the Church of Jesus Christ, that would not "come across as very accurate to" you?

Perhaps in an effort to make her book more readable (and marketable), she overdid the Utah Mormon caricatures, but it was not intended to be a history book (like Quinn's books) but a readable narrative of her life as she experienced it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Martha may have; but there were three sisters, and there were only three bedrooms in the house; and the other sisters remember that all three of them shared.

Did Martha really overlook her older sister? Hmmm, I wonder why...?

Other than Martha's book, I am unaware of the Nibley family's sleeping arrangements.

It couldn't possibly be because she was a college age woman who was engaged to be married.

Well, could it?

She was engaged to be married to John Beck when she was a 17-year old freshman? Where did you get this? In any event, whatever the doc saw 'down there' convinced him she was sexually active, when she in fact wasn't. And did John actually have such a close relationship with then 17-year old Martha that she described for him in the most inimate details her OB/GYN exam, including the reason she went for the exam: a yeast infection (gross!)? That I do not find believable.