Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: August 14, 2018 01:06AM
Let's go through your distortions about McKenna Denson.
That is her name, by the way.
----------------
> Have you read the transcripts?
Yes, I have read the transcripts and listened to the full tape. You, however, have not, as is evident from your misrepresentations about what Denson and Bishop said.
----------------
> He was a confused old man, and was a few days past
> a heart procedure and on medication during the
> interview.
He was lucid and coherent. Listen to the tape.
------------
> She badgered him to confess, but he
> did not.
In fact, he admitted to multiple sex crimes and said he was the Harvey Weinstein of Mormonism. Another woman has subsequently revealed that she was one of the other missionaries Bishop confessed to having assaulted. And a janitor has stated publicly that he had seen the rape room many times, complete with bed, VCR, etc. So there is considerable collaborating evidence behind Denson's claims.
If Bishop had a problem, it was not a lack of lucidity. It was that he had sexually assaulted so many women that he had forgotten who was who. That is his problem, not Denson's.
-------------
> In addition, she is reported to have made at least
> 2 other false allegations of rape. Also is
> under investigation for identity fraud. And
> once made a false report about getting locked in a
> trunk outside a business after she was fired.
This is a textbook ad hominem attack. You say that because she has made major mistakes, her contentions are not credible. That is a lazy way to avoid looking at the evidence: it indicates that you don't care whether what she says is true.
Since almost all victims of childhood sexual abuse make bad life decisions, your standard would mean that there is no recourse for those against whom the greatest crimes are committed. That is an uniformed and unreasonable position to assume.
---------------
> Also in her interview she said he never penetrated
> her because he couldn't get an erection, but later
> said he did. Story keeps changing.
Read what the police said. Her story was consistent. What changed was that the police explained that according to the legal definition, what had happened to her (partial penetration) was rape. Her account of what happened in the MTC did not evolve.
------------------
> From the interview in December:
>
>
https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/f/fd/2017-J> oseph_L_Bishop-Transcript.pdf
>
> Do you remember . . .trying to rape
> me? But you didn't, because you didn't have a full
> erection. You don't remember that?
Where in there did Denson say Bishop didn't penetrate her? You are putting words in her mouth.
What she did say was that Bishop did not rape her because he couldn't keep a full erection, meaning he couldn't complete the coitus. But that is much more than is necessary for "rape," which is any penetration at all. That is why the police informed her that she'd been raped and then went after Bishop.
----------------
The bottom line is that there was no inconsistency in what Denson said happened in the MTC. Bishop has confessed to much of it, and other witnesses to his activities in his rape room have collaborated much of what she said.
I have trouble understanding what it is that makes you so unwilling to look at the evidence objectively. You care enough to denigrate her here, multiple times, but not enough to read the transcript and the police statements carefully. That is not a balanced approach.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2018 01:34AM by Lot's Wife.