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

[_Mary]

And more from David

"Several of the children first told a parent about being molested by the Miles - not Barbara Snow. That parent informed Snow. I have interviewed the parent and provided this video interview to the victims’ attorney prior to the lawsuit being filed. Barbara Snow has also told me that the involvement of the Miles was first disclosed to her by that parent. Snow did not conjure this up. She could not have. This was not “implanted memories” by the therapist. Convenient defense - but facts matter."

Excuse me for my ignorance, but does anyone know the status of this current case?

Meadowchik, the alleged victims lawyer has a month to respond to the motion to dismiss. That's all I know.

[_Mary]

Is this David guy saying that after beginning their counseling with Snow, the kids told their parents that the Miles were involved, but since they told the parents first, that somehow Snow's counseling shouldn't be considered a factor? If that's the argument, I'm not sure I buy that.

I'd be interested in Rep Ipsa's take on this.

If the argument is that Snow planted false memories, then the clarification that the children disclosed to their mother the alleged abuse of the Miles seems relevant.

[_Meadowchik]

Meadowchik, the alleged victims lawyer has a month to respond to the motion to dismiss. That's all I know.

Thanks. I found the Facebook thread, by the way!

[_Mary]

Meadowchik, the alleged victims lawyer has a month to respond to the motion to dismiss. That's all I know.

Thanks. I found the Facebook thread, by the way!

Brilliant. I copy pasted all David's comments because he has obviously been working on this.

[_Meadowchik]

Is this David guy saying that after beginning their counseling with Snow, the kids told their parents that the Miles were involved, but since they told the parents first, that somehow Snow's counseling shouldn't be considered a factor? If that's the argument, I'm not sure I buy that.

I'd be interested in Rep Ipsa's take on this.

If the argument is that Snow planted false memories, then the clarification that the children disclosed to their mother the alleged abuse of the Miles seems relevant.

Right. The whole problem with Snow, generally speaking, is that her methods in some cases seem to have involved excessive suggestion. Sexual abuse is among the infinite possibilities that might be causing a child to suffer and need therapy, so a therapist that would create the suggestion of that specifically would be interfering with the diagnosis.

On the other hand, a disclosure that specifies sexual abuse before any contact with Snow means that the existence of sexual abuse was considered without her interference. Thus, the fact that Snow associated with their case should not disqualify the possibility of sexual abuse in their case as one might be inclined to do given her reputation.

So, given the disclosure of the children, the confession of the father and the physical injuries that required surgical repair, it does appear that the fact that sexual abuse did occur is well-established. And the fact that the Miles were included in the disclosures before Snow's involvement lends credibility to the accusation that they also participated in the abuse. And the fact that the father and the Miles were both given special warning before being investigated in their homes would reduce the credibility of that initial police investigation.

Then the heavy political influence of the church at that time, apostle Nelson's involvement with his daughter Brenda Miles after the accusations were made, the lack of institutional caution of the church with the second set of children in the father's second marriage, and the absence of an excommunication for the father at the time all add another dimension to the case. This story seems to be one where church relationships enabled predatory grooming, assault and cover-up, so much so that the abuse was repeated (at least in the father's case) with another set of children.

I hope that this sexual abuse finally recieves a thorough and proper investigation that it deserves, that the victims are formally heard before a judge without undue political-religious influence.

[_Lemmie]

On the other hand, a disclosure that specifies sexual abuse before any contact with Snow means that the existence of sexual abuse was considered without her interference....

And the fact that the Miles were included in the disclosures before Snow's involvement lends credibility to the accusation that they also participated in the abuse.

I don't think that was the case, however. According to Marion Smith's account, the children saw Snow before any of them said anything about abuse. Snow gave them clean bills of health, but re-interviewed AFTER Marion Smith told her about the babysitter from the Bullock case where 10 adults and numerous teenagers were accused.

A few months later in January of 1986, Janice, a baby tender used by both our daughters, was implicated by a child victim in the Bullock case. Our daughter Eileen and her husband Bill Carstensea were told by me about the allegations regarding Janice. Bill insisted his children be interviewed and made an appointment at ISAT with Dr. Barbara Snow. He told Barbara, “Ask Tricia (then age five). She’ll tell.” Barbara found no problem with Susan (Eileen’s oldest child, recently turned eight) or Tricia. Susan had completed psychological tests with a school psychologist two months earlier in
connection with consideration of skipping a school grade. The psychologist found Susan to be, “a very healthy child with no significant problems.”

Barbara told Eileen the kids seemed fine, but on hearing more about the baby tender, she re-interviewed the children ....

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

P 6 and 7, marion Smith's account "A Blip here..."

So the children began their interviews by Snow BEFORE any of them said anything about abuse, on the basis of Marion Snow's assertion that a babysitter involved with another alleged (and later proved untrue) story of a neighborhood sex ring.

Only AFTER Snow learned of the previous (but untrue) story of a sex ring, and AFTER Snow had interviewed them multiple times did the abuse allegations begin. At that point, saying the kids first told someone else a particular name does not obviate the influence Snow had.

There is no doubt abuse occurred on the basis of other information, what is not credible in this story are the elements of neighborhood sex ring activities such as the "touching parties", and the large and varied number of people, all associated with Snow's ultimately discredited approach.

Although the more I read, the more I think Marion Smith was as irresponsible as Snow at the time, with regard to therapeutic practices and policies.

It's stunning that just after Marion Smith begins heading up the sex abuse clinic, she finds dozens of adults and teenagers, not only in her ward but in her daughter's ward, allegedly running huge sex rings.

[_Meadowchik]

I don't think that was the case, however. According to Marion Smith's account, the children saw Snow before any of them said anything about abuse. Snow gave them clean bills of health, but re-interviewed AFTER Marion Smith told her about the babysitter from the Bullock case where 10 adults and numerous teenagers were accused.

Yet I am seeing statements that contradict that timeline.

from David Eccles Hardy from previous page:

"Several of the children first told a parent about being molested by the Miles - not Barbara Snow. That parent informed Snow. I have interviewed the parent and provided this video interview to the victims’ attorney prior to the lawsuit being filed. Barbara Snow has also told me that the involvement of the Miles was first disclosed to her by that parent. Snow did not conjure this up. She could not have. This was not “implanted memories” by the therapist. Convenient defense - but facts matter.""

"I have first hand knowledge of this matter. In 1986 I received a letter by fax and hand-delivered it to then Apostle Russell M. Nelson as a favor for a Washington DC attorney about the strategy to keep this matter from being exposed. I provided a signed declaration about this matter to the victims’ attorney, Craig Vernon. I spent February through May of this year interviewing victims and parents and gathering documentary evidence, much of it in the U of U Special Collections section, all supporting the victims’ allegations. I have shared this information with two national news organizations and with the victims’ attorney prior to the lawsuit being filed. The children, from multiple families in the Bountiful Maple Hills Ward, weren’t “getting jerked around by both sides.” They had been horrifically sexually abused by those they trusted. Their stories were consistent and corroborative. They worked with different therapists, and an MD’s examination found scarring and evidence of serious sexual abuse in several of the victims (this evidence is in the lawsuit). The facts regarding the police “investigation” are disturbing; police gave the Miles & Bill Carstensen 24 hours advance notice that their houses would be searched - before summarily dropping the investigation upon finding no evidence. This abuse occurred. The victims, their parents and grandparents have been discredited and not believed for thirty years. Not again."

[_Mary]

Lemmie made quite a few incorrect assumptions in her post, but I'm reluctant to engage her on this.

[_Meadowchik]

Lemmie made quite a few incorrect assumptions in her post, but I'm reluctant to engage her on this.

Going over the Marion Smith account again, the timeline begins with her lesson she gave at church, upon request, about the symptoms of sexual abuse. Children would come forward after that, then were referred to therapists including Snow. According to Smith's account, I might need to adjust what I said, in that the concerns about sexual abuse were already raised before the children spoke to Snow. If I go by the grandmother, it was Eileen the babysitter who had already been accused by a victim in the Brett Bullock case, and being the babysitter of her grandchildren, the father insisted Snow interview them. The first time revealed no abuse. Then Snow was informed of the accusations against Eileen, and it was then that the children are said to have disclosed abuse.

Obviously this is a difficult case. It looks to me that, its timing at a juncture when sexual abuse was being more talked about and the science and psychology about it being in its developmental stages, makes it more difficult.

On the one hand, the idea of a panic occurring is understandable, once you realised abuse is a possibility and that perhaps you've trusted individuals too much. On the other hand, if there has been a clump of abused that is being exposed, one would expect a sense of panic.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie made quite a few incorrect assumptions in her post, but I'm reluctant to engage her on this.

Please don't feel you need to engage me if you are not comfortable doing that, just engage with the ideas. Which statements of the post are incorrect assumptions?

Obviously this is a difficult case. It looks to me that, its timing at a juncture when sexual abuse was being more talked about and the science and psychology about it being in its developmental stages, makes it more difficult.

Good point. And this case is in the unique position of having statements made both during and, now, considerably after, the time period. I don't doubt abuse occurred, but I am wondering why the lawyer would also include many of the accusations that go beyond the abuse allegations and into the discredited sex ring and large group accusations. Those parts have been fully discussed and discredited, and they just take credibility away from the actual abuse issue, in my opinion.