Sandy man says he's grateful for justice; attorney says it was his accusers who attacked him
I'm not sure at all about the specifics of not attending church. I cant
help but wonder if we was not permitted because his charges involved sexual
assault of children and there are children at the church. I am sure he was not
permitted to go to parks or schools either. He did have a GPS monitor on him
and I am certain the courts restricted his movements.Not sure why
that has to lead to attacks on any church or organization with children. This
is about protecting children. Unfortunately we must do that first, while we
fight for innocence. It is a harsh but true reality of our times.
About the article -- can you clarify what was meant by the bite marks all over
him being like bullet holes???? Were they small round holes, or were they
randomly on his body like bullet shots might be?
If he was asked not to attend meetings, my guess is, it is because the branch is
closely-knit and it would distract from the spirit. Certainly he could have had
the sacrament brought to his home. I wonder if he was prosecuted for political
reasons. The government seemed to have no case, yet brought it anyway. The
prosecutor seemed to be saying it was better to try a terrible case and lose
easily than to dismiss the charges. That way, there is no appearance of undo
influence by the LDS Church.
It said he had a ankle monitor. Does that mean he could not leave his house?
Could that be the reason he could not participate. I don't know about these
things. It is only what I have seen in movies and TV programs :) .
Laura in WA...good questions.I'm not sure what the specifics were in
this man's case, but the LDS church does conduct services in prisons.
They are allowed to attend regular meetings when freed.
I'm a bit confused as to why this man either refrained from or was told to
stay away from church. Was it because it was feared that he might attack
somebody at church? Or that he might be guilty and shouldn't associate
with unguilty people? Are people convicted of crimes barred from the LDS church
forever? Or are they considered permanantly contaminated but able to go to a
special ward for others in the same position? Serious question.
Meck, you make a good point. Why should the DN let anyone--particularly someone
who makes especially hurtful comments and wild accusations--hide behind a screen
name? I certainly don't have a problem writing under my own name.Even our local newspaper refused to print letters under fake names. The
requirement was stated with a simple explanation: "If you don't have
enough courage of your convictions to sign your own name, don't waste the
time of either of us."
There are additional informative facts presented on the Tribune website.
Dan...I can understand the church removing him from his position pending the
trial, but why would they tell him not to attend services or refrain from
sacrament? Are you implying that they thought he was guilty? That is what your
rebuttal says to me. Perhaps they were thinking about OJ Simpson who was also
found innocent? For those looking for him to be compensated, he can
always bring a civil action against the woman, but a single mother with two kids
probably doesn't have anything. This is exactly why there is
always supposed to be at least one other person nearby during a meeting and
there must be at least two visiting a home. Wasn't it Hinckley who told
the story of seeing his secretary standing at a bus stop during a snow storm and
not stopping to give her a ride because he was alone and that goes against
'company' policy. Probably a good reminder for everyone.
@ cjb - Bountiful, UT "This is like being freed from an indictment," he
said. "He could not go to church, he could not participate, he could not
take communion. Now his good name has been cleared." He says he could not do
those things. This implies he can now. I thought Bishops in the LDS church were
supposed to operate by inspiration. Either he was guilty this entire time or he
wasn't."OK...it's late and I need to go to bed but I
must respond.You are implying, in an underhanded way, that this LDS
leader was unworthy to take the sacrament (ie, "guilty") and the proof
of that is in the fact he did not take the sacrament for the 2 yrs the legal
case wound its way through the courts. The "inspiration" comment is
also below the belt.Rebuttal: Is it not possible that the LDS church
said "don't take the sacrament until this is resolved" and he
humbly obeyed?"Inspiration"....sometimes inspiration leads
us through difficult and painful paths. Perhaps inspiration was received and
acted on by the LDS leader and the MOTHER did not reciprocate? You do not know.
There's a lot more to this story and if the involved woman is charged with
assault and battery, it will come out.
"This is like being freed from an indictment," he said. "He could
not go to church, he could not participate, he could not take communion. Now his
good name has been cleared."He says he could not do those
things. This implies he can now. I thought Bishops in the LDS church were
supposed to operate by inspiration. Either he was guilty this entire time or he
There could still be pending charges on the self proclaimed victims if it has
been found that they were falsely accusing the defendant. Often charges are not
brought until after the first case is heard, it is amazing what kind of
detective work can be done by the defense while preparing for trial that was not
found prior to charges being made. Since this could be considered a waste of the
tax payers funds & the courts time if something concrete was divulged during
the trial that proves this was a false accusation & perhaps a motive as well
then charges could be filed on the accuser in the near future.Hopefully this man can move forward with his life in a positive way, it sounds
like he has a positive attitude from this article. I imagine after this he
doesn't take things for granted that we so often do. Hopefully we all learn
from this the reason for visiting others in groups of 2 or more the buddy system
is good for more than just camping.
I'm pleased he was cleared but what can be done to help this man get his
job back and to compensate him for his lost wages and other expenses associated
with this false accusation?
Mack,Both he and the woman had the opportunity to present their
cases in court and she was unable to prove what she said. Based on our system
of justice there should no longer be any suspicion cast toward this man.Of course, at the same time, unless the man chooses to press charges
against the woman we shouldn't go accusing her either.Flashback
hit the nail on the head. No church leader should be visiting or meeting with
members of their congregation alone. It leaves people open for these kinds of
situations and unfortunately there are people who will take advantage of it.
@sandrad,I would agree with your post if the last five words said
"therefore, he is presumed innocent."The law does indeed presume
him to be innocent until proven guilty.I'm sure there are a lot
of people who have been acquitted of crimes when in fact they did commit the
crime. Not saying that's the case here, I'm just trying to make my
point.Only he, the women who accused him, and God know for certainty
what happened that day.
It is interesting who we are glad gets found guilty and who we are glad are
found to be not guilty. The jury didn't find the allegations false. The
jury found no reason to convict. While this man should be treated as if none of
this ever happened we don't publish names of people who reported being
victims of a crime. No one would come forward because there is no way to know
how a jury would rule. Flashback I hope you are in law enforcement
and didn't take an allegation into your own hands to determine it's
validity. That is why scouting and church scandals are being investigation after
decades, often after the death of the accused. People in authority deciding for
themselves whether to notify law enforcement.
This is in response to "Mack" from Kentucky. The jury did not have to
find the man innocent. In criminal cases, there is a presumption of innocence
until a person is found guilty. The man in this case was acquitted, therefore,
he is innocent.
It should be remembered that the jury did not find this man innocent. Juries
aren't asked to do that. They simply heard the case and concluded that the
state was not able to present enough evidence to prove that he was guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. "Not guilty" does not mean the same thing as
"innocent". Only he and the women who accused him know with certainty
what happened that day.
@MICHAEL MATHEWS and FLASHBACK:Thank you for your thoughtful and
insightful replies to my comment. No doubt these things can be tricky to ferret
out. All I am trying to convey is the idea that when someone makes false
accusations (and if that is proven), there should be consequences for the
accuser. Often, it appears that false accusers ruin other peoples lives and get
away with it with impunity. Where is the justice for a victim of false
accusations after he or she has their reputations trashed, loses job and
so-forth? Would it be unjust when someone falsely accuses another to have their
destructive behavior exposed to the public so that they can feel the gravity of
their malicious behavior? I think if false accusers knew there were severe
consequences for that type of behavior we would see fewer innocent people's
lives ruined!. Sadly our society seems to be more tolerant for the rights of
the criminal and less for the victim.
Just another example of why everyone should go two by two. "In the mouth of
two or three witnesses..." The cops need to be more diligent and the
prosecutors need not to have tunnel vision in these cases. They need to clearly
establish facts that can be proved, including motive, and then proceed. In
cases like this cops tend to belive the "victim". Personally I agree
with Meckofahess. The accusers should have their names and faces plastered all
over the news. Since there allegations have been proven wrong, they have no
expectation of privacy.I investigated a case years ago where a
student accused a teacher of abusing him. I quickly established the fact that
the kid was lying due to multiple witness statements by other kids that were
there. Once that fact was established, the case was solved and no action was
taken because nothing happened. All statements from witnesses, including the
supposed suspect, agreed in detail and contradicted the accuser. A man's
reputation was save due to a good initial investigation done with open eyes.
@ Meck,Scenario: Man A goes into a jewelry store and steals some
jewelry. Man B passing by at the opportune time sees it and reports the crime.
For my point, assume this happened as so. In the trial Man B's
truthfulness gets called into question. Man B has a history of convictions
himself. Or perhaps a false witness says that Man B was with them at the time
in question. Perhaps even Man A has figured out a way to sneak some of the
jewelry into man B's friends house and the whole situations is a "meck
of a hess". Eventually Man A is acquitted. Did Man B lie here? Is he
guilty of anything related to the situation? The problem is... not convincing
someone of a crime does not mean that he or she didn't do it. They might
have, but there is not enough reliable evidence to convict. The same thing
might have happened here. You "can't" reveal the "accuser"
unless there is compelling evidence that she or he committed crime. It's a
big quandary in our legal system. I don't know what the real solution is.
@ Meckofahess: The daughter is probably just as much a victim of her mother as
the man who was falsely accused. Releasing her name or the name of her mother
would irreparably damage her while probably doing nothing to harm the mother.Luckily, this man seems to have the true love of Christ in his heart and
is able to think beyond his own interests to what is best for others
involved.Now that he has been acquitted the best thing is to move
If our justice system really worked, the name of the woman and/or her daughter
would be plastered all over the front page of the newspaper!. When someone like
this bad woman ruins another person's life with false accusations, why do
they get a pass? This good man should try to counter sue the false accuser for
damages, but I'm guessing she is probably a dead-beat and doesn't have
anything and never will.