I would like have to have seen something along these lines for when it seems Joanna, and which she alludes to in her mea culpa message, didn't feel up to the task. When lawyers start to get involved, it often ends messy, at least with independant investigation one would hopefully get new eyes and a non-partial view of the situation.
I would question an independent investigation where one of the parties at least wouldn't be obliged to hand over all evidence. I presume John Dehlin would though since this would be coniditioned on his continued employment. Rosebud has already left so not constrained at all.
It would have been a much better way to go at the time, for sure. This is one of the many ways in which all of the trial and error in the Christian community puts it in a better position to deal with these things now. The mistakes have been made so many times that resources have grown up to deal with them. Not so much with Mormonism, and Mormons are slow to look to Christian institutions for models and tips.
One more thing, remember that Rosebud's position is that she had no obligation to share evidence. The first time she seems to have done so was in her document drop just days ago.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
The one thing Open Stories Foundation could do that hasn't been done is have an independent third-party organization investigate their 2012-2013 firing of Rosebud and assess whether they concur that Open Stories Foundation did nothing wrong.
I've been watching a number of evangelical sex abuse scandals unfold these past few years. Independent third-party investigations are the way forward.
(By "independent third-party" I mean an organization with credibility in victim advocacy, not some attorney on the dole.)
Open Stories Foundation's 2018 internal investigation of their own conduct is meaningless.
I would like have to have seen something along these lines for when it seems Joanna, and which she alludes to in her mea culpa message, didn't feel up to the task. When lawyers start to get involved, it often ends messy, at least with independant investigation one would hopefully get new eyes and a non-partial view of the situation.
I would question an independent investigation where one of the parties at least wouldn't be obliged to hand over all evidence. I presume JD would though since this would be coniditioned on his continued employment. Rosebud has already left so not constrained at all.
That's a good point, looking at the link MsJack provided there is not a direct answer to that issue that I can see, but one of the questions in the FAQ addresses the general idea:
What does the scope of an investigation usually cover?
The scope of a GRACE investigation depends upon the type of investigation undertaken.
Investigations can be broad and/or narrow in focus. For example, some institutions ask GRACE to evaluate the institution’s culture and environment, which includes understanding how the institution has historically responded to allegations of misconduct over time. Other times, an investigation is more narrowly defined in scope and GRACE is asked to investigate specific allegations about a particular person or a particular set of circumstances at a specific point in time.
In either case, we provide feedback and analysis relevant to the scope of the investigation, including whether the institution knew of any alleged misconduct and how it responded.
As I recall from listening to the cognitive interview in 2018 she told John to not enter the room she was in. He did anyway, he groped her, she told him to stop, he stopped. It seemed contextually and with it being left unsaid that he had groped her before and it was consensual, and once she withdrew consent he stopped.
It sounds like JD never had her consent to enter her bedroom that night in the first place.
As I recall from listening to the cognitive interview in 2018 she told John to not enter the room she was in. He did anyway, he groped her, she told him to stop, he stopped. It seemed contextually and with it being left unsaid that he had groped her before and it was consensual, and once she withdrew consent he stopped.
It sounds like JD never had her consent to enter her bedroom that night in the first place.
As I recall from listening to the cognitive interview in 2018 she told John to not enter the room she was in. He did anyway, he groped her, she told him to stop, he stopped. It seemed contextually and with it being left unsaid that he had groped her before and it was consensual, and once she withdrew consent he stopped.
It sounds like John Dehlin never had her consent to enter her bedroom that night in the first place.
It’s a good thing we can take Rosebud’s word for it.
Bringing in a large apothecary scale to weigh John Dehlin against a duck, and the complete works of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson would be a novel and fun approach to a third-party investigation, regardless of whether the underlying charges are bogus or true.
If the duck proves heavier, what becomes of Rosebud?
What this thread has reinforced, repeatedly, is that this situation was handled so badly and has become so unbelievably convoluted that there is no a priori reason to take anyone's word for anything, including those reporting on investigations, those being interviewed, and especially participants in the incident, some of whom are providing their own unverified "evidence" on their own, and others who are directly providing some of their own similarly unverified versions to those doing the investigating, interviewing and reporting. Add in the bias so many have specifically expressed, and it makes MsJack's recommendation of a third party independent review look like a no-brainer.
What this thread has reinforced, repeatedly, is that this situation was handled so badly and has become so unbelievably convoluted that there is no a priori reason to take anyone's word for anything, including those reporting on investigations, those being interviewed, and especially participants in the incident, some of whom are providing their own unverified "evidence" on their own, and others who are directly providing some of their own similarly unverified versions to those doing the investigating, interviewing and reporting. Add in the bias so many have specifically expressed, and it makes MsJack's recommendation of a third party independent review look like a no-brainer.
This is frequently the way things go in these sorts of situations.
Which is why contemporaneous documentary evidence assumes such importance.
This is my basis for thinking that Rosebud’s allegations on paragraph 8 of her NH complaint are so important when compared with the text messages Rosebud was sending to JD on the exact same day; texts that paint a very different picture from what she alleges.
And text messages, by the way, the veracity of which Rosebud has not disputed to my knowledge to this very day.
What this thread has reinforced, repeatedly, is that this situation was handled so badly and has become so unbelievably convoluted that there is no a priori reason to take anyone's word for anything, including those reporting on investigations, those being interviewed, and especially participants in the incident, some of whom are providing their own unverified "evidence" on their own, and others who are directly providing some of their own similarly unverified versions to those doing the investigating, interviewing and reporting. Add in the bias so many have specifically expressed, and it makes MsJack's recommendation of a third party independent review look like a no-brainer.
This is frequently the way things go in these sorts of situations.
Which is why contemporaneous documentary evidence assumes such importance.
This is my basis for thinking that Rosebud’s allegations on paragraph 8 of her NH complaint are so important when compared with the text messages Rosebud was sending to JD on the exact same day; texts that paint a very different picture from what she alleges.
And text messages, by the way, the veracity of which Rosebud has not disputed to my knowledge to this very day.
If I recall correctly, what she has disputed is that JD showed all of the texts, from both parties, for the time period under discussion. Maybe more verification happened behind the scenes, but what I recall from the transcript was that the interviewee who supported JD's version of events was asked if she had been shown the text messages by JD. She said she had. Then, the transcript of text messages, which later in this thread was stated to have been provided directly by one of the two people in the conflict, was presented.
That felt very insufficient, especially since 'being shown text messages' doesn't address the question of whether there were other messages that she was not shown. Not to mention that introducing as fact messages that were later revealed to be transcribed with no oversight by one of the people in the conflict is not information that one can automatically assume is unbiased.
