Here a a few more examples
Carbon Dioxide wrote:Got to love these stories that go back decades. Barely remember what I was doing in 1984. It was my freshman year in high school and listened to Van Halen "1984" album. It is always amazing to find how suing for some money this many years later eases the pain. Must be getting close to retirement age and needs enough to make it through ok. And nobody say it is not about the money because in almost every case none of the people who make money off these lawsuits donate the proceeds to charity.
I would not forget and I would not wait decades to get off my butt to seek justice.
Calm wrote: It is so easy to claim you would act a certain way when you have not been placed in that situation,
CO2 wrote: I can tell you that if I was embarrassed enough to not seek justice 1 week after such an event, I would be 100 times more embarrassed to bring it up 30 plus years later. I just don't have much sympathy for people like this. Especially when they are looking for a nice payday from it. Give all the money to charity if its not about the money. But more likely they have an eye on that Porsche or Mercedes that they have always wanted but could not afford. The words to the Eagles 'Get over It" song rings true to me
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
The more I think about it ole Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers kill 'em tonight
You don't wanna work you wanna live like a king
But the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing
Get over it
poster removed
samualthelamanite wrote:Because fabrications do happen. In a conservative magazine Jason Richwine makes the case that false accusations may be more common than we think
Joseph F Smith wrote:So far you have rumor and hearsay. I want names, dates, records, and prosecution. I want facts, not wild speculation. I have no doubt that local leaders have made mistakes, and I can cite specific examples with hard data, but SLC HQ does not take such matters lightly when they are informed. Unfortunately, the facts don't always get back to the Brethren in a timely manner. They and law enforcement should be informed immediately, not decades later. You need to realize, Tacenda, that the actual evidence has largely disappeared when decades have gone by.
Bluebell wrote:If the woman served an 18 month mission, then agree about the use of the term 'briefly'. Otherwise, i don't see how accurate information is wrong to share, regardless of how it makes the accuser look. If she's a former member, then that's relevant to the story. It explains why she is working through the LDS church even though she's not a member. Talking about her mission is what connects her to the events at the MTC.
You don't see why who the accuser is and why a nonmember is going through the LDS leadership is relevant to the story? It seems obviously relevant to me. Neither do i see those words as meaning untrustworthy. She's a former member, it's just a fact.
Bernard Gui wrote:I read the entire transcript. It appears something from his past is deeply troubling him. Whether he is competent or guilty should be determined by experts, not the media or gossip-mongers.The woman seems genuinely conflicted. Her pain appears to be genuine. Her anger certainly is. Her competence and veracity should also be examined by experts.
I know from personal and close family and friend experiences that false accusations are real, potent, damaging, and difficult to disprove. Innocent people indeed can be railroaded...
Robert F Smith wrote:You seem a bit confused, Duncan. What you say about following the Spirit and making up your own mind is not at all opposed to Mormon doctrine. In fact, it is praiseworthy. What has led you to think otherwise? Blind obedience and disregard for one's conscience is the most significant problem and deviance. That is all quite aside from questions about this long ago series of events. Do we really have any hard evidence for it?
Weaponizing this issue against the Church ("taking ... some institution down a peg"), if that is what is going on, is also a repellant thing.
Thanks,
-Smac
First, it is interesting that MormonLeaks released this without the permission of the woman. Perhaps she sent it to them, but did so with provisos which they ignored. Or perhaps the woman shared the recording with a friend, who in turn forwarded it to MormonLeaks. Or perhaps the woman did give permission, then had a change of heart and denied giving it. Her credibility is . . . not very good.
Second, I am glad that the D News did not release her name. However, I think it's just a matter of time before her identity comes out. If she really has a criminal history, then someone interested enough in digging things up will be able to figure out who she is. And if and when that happens, her reputation - the criminal history, the shakedowns ("10 other men," according to the D News article), the murder threats, everything - will become public knowledge. Courtesy of WikiLeaks.
Third, the circumstances under which the woman procured the "confession" are looking worse and worse as time goes on. The man is 85. His mental state seems very much in question (evidenced at several points in the recording, such as when he forgets his own name). She lured him into a interview under false pretenses. She asked a bunch of loaded and leading questions. Bro. Bishop apparently did not recognize the woman, and yet within an hour he is confessing sexual transgressions to her, and largely in response to leading questions? Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Fourth, is anyone else having recollections of another instance of a woman using false pretenses to lure an elderly man with potential diminished mental capacity into a private discussion, and then bombarding him with leading questions and pressure tactics so as to extract a "confession" from him, and secretly recording the whole thing? Martha Beck, call your office.
An interview conducted under false pretenses, by an interviewer with an ax to grind and criminal history that apparently includes shakedown attempts against ten other men.
An interview full to overflowing with accusatory, loaded, leading questions, foul language, anger expressed at the interviewee by the interviewer, etc.
Thanks,
-Smac
Joseph F Smith wrote:And your evidence that the LDS Church has a policy (or had a policy) to systematically cover up these types of crimes is what? Rumor and hearsay? The way we know of the Roman Catholic cover ups is that we have names, dates, places, and proof of cardinals and archbishops actively covering up abuse crimes and protecting the abusers. In all instances in which I have knowledge of the LDS Brethren finding out about these violations, they are merciless in swiftly excommunicating the perpetrators. Perhaps you have actual cases where they ignored the evidence. Not just rumor, but real evidence.
Storm Rider wrote:Calm - I think my point is the none of us here has all of the information needed to be a judge of this individual. In a very real sense - none of us is in a position to judge him or her. I think each of us should be reticent to judge anyone else.
Given the number of people that are jailed yet are innocent of any crime tells me that even with what we each hope is "all the information" juries still condemn innocent individuals to prison. Yet, here we are acting as if we are both capable and empowered to judge him. ...
LOL, you are such a hypocrite. You make me laugh. Put down that smug self-righteousness and remember what God has told us about judging one another. On the other hand, have at it. That standard you seek to judge others will be the standard you are judged by. Judge away, great one.
The hypocrisy belongs to this Board. Nehor writes a post that is strictly a personal attack, I report it, and nothing happens. Instead, one of my posts gets some ridiculous comment about if I don't like discussing current events then find another thread. Who in the heck is this mod? Gads, get someone with a modicum of objectivity. Either follow the rules for all or don't enforce them for anyone. This can teach people to hate.
When you cannot discuss the topic and begin to attack the individual then there is no discussion.
poster removed
why me wrote:This case goes back over 30 years. I think that the LDS church is more aware of what to do when someone reports abuse. One tends to learn with time. However, I have no idea what this has to to with the LDS church as a whole. It was a perverted church leader and not the policy of the LDS church. It seems that the church did what they thought was best for that time.
Well, it seems that the the antimormons love it. Has mormonleaks leaked information that may be favorable to the LDS church? It seems to get a lot of hay on antimormon sites. And this speaks volumes.
One must always look at the time frame when passing judgement.
I am talking about judgement. I will give an example: many americans were prejudice in the past. This prejudice what not exactly white and black. But also against the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. The US was an ethnic society with jokes galore. And now....times have changed. Should I judge my grandmother or grandfather now for their time frame of life and their attitudes?
The old guy made a mistake by talking with his victim. He should have known she was recording it. If he would have continued to deny everything on the recording, nothing would have been done. Most likely, by meeting with her, he tried to make amends in some sort of way. I can only wonder what would compel him to do what he did at the MTC. What came over him? Strange to be sure. His family must be in a mess now. Quite the shock for his children. Pain all around. Sad.
