Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

Wait, didn't one of the guests on the Mormonism Live podcast say the Open Stories Foundation had no intention of hiring back Rosebud?

I don't recall that, Meadowchik. I suppose if it was said, Natasha was the one who said it. Nadine Hansen was not on the board in 2012, so she would not have said it. Natasha's knowledge of what happened in August is unreliable because she did not know anything until, what, September 4? And then she writes an email that essentially says, "Wha . . . ? I have no idea what is going on!"

My idea of what happened is based on what I read in the documents that were generated at the time this all went down. People may remember or, more accurately, misremember what happened, but we can turn to the documents so that we don't have to rely on later, unreliable recollections. I go with the documentary evidence.

After that, I go with what I know about the people involved by watching them in action, and I have been watching these people for a long time. They have a pattern to their behavior and they don't really deviate from it. Why should I expect that they will deviate from it? Why should I invest in some tale about who JD or Rosebud "really are," when I can look at their behavior over the past decade or more and trust my own assessment of these people?

Between the documents, and what I have observed by dealing with JD and Rosebud, I see an unwise extramarital affair that was later recast as a criminal accusation by a person who threatened that she would bogusly claim that JD sexually harassed her. We have all of this in Rosebud's own words from 2012.

This laughable recording concocted by people who hate JD and have been after him for a long time is not worth crap.

[Kishkumen]

Anyway, what's weird going back and listening to the intro is this guy's claim that this was a 'cognitive interview', even going as far as insinuating it's a 'forensic interview' which is absurd. There's nothing "cognitive" nor "forensic" about this "interview". It's a three-hour open mic session where she clearly massages her narrative to fall in line with her threats she outlined in Option 2. Whether or not this guy (he's so unimportant to me that I'm not going to bother rewinding and trudging through his opening nonsense statements to figure it out) lends legitimacy to Rosebud's claim with his opening salvo is beside the point. What we have is Rosebud's fantastical tale of a innocent nave totally under the spell of a master manipulator, which is absurd. This is a woman scorned, she clearly outlined her intent in Option 2, was pissed the Open Stories Foundation didn't let her take control of their operation, and has gone about carrying out the threats made in Option 2. James Patterson claims in one of his Reddit posts that Option 2 was her being cheeky - I think the “F” not. She's clearly doing her best to carry out those threats. REMEMBER: THE ONLY REASON WHY WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS IS BECAUSE ROSEBUD MADE IT OUR BUSINESS.

I thought that "cognitive interview" business was, to put it mildly, odd. So, I looked it up:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognit ... rview.html

The cognitive interview (CI) is a questioning technique used by the police to enhance retrieval of information about a crime scene from the eyewitnesses and victim's memory. The following four basic principles are used: mental reinstatement; report everything; change order; and change perspective.

The interviewer tries to mentally reinstate the environmental and personal context of the crime for the witnesses, perhaps by asking them about their general activities and feelings on the day. This could include sights, sounds, feelings and emotions, the weather etc.

In the interview, witnesses are often asked to use all of their 5 senses in their recollection of the event. This can help in recreating the event clearly in their mind and may trigger the recall of context dependent memories.

Witnesses are asked to report the incident from different perspective, describing what they think other witnesses (or even the criminals themselves) might have seen.

Recounting the incident in a different narrative order. Geiselman and Fisher proposed that due to the recency effect, people tend to recall more recent events more clearly than others. Witnesses should be encouraged to work backwards from the end to the beginning.

Witnesses are asked to report every detail, even if they think that detail is trivial. In this way, apparently unimportant detail might act as a trigger for key information about the event.

The number of facts accurately recalled and the number of errors made were recorded. The average number of correctly recalled facts for the cognitive interview was 41.2, for hypnosis it was 38.0 and for the standard interview it was 29.4.

The cognitive interview is useful when interviewing older witnesses. Wright and Holliday (2007) found that the older the participant, the less complete and accurate the recall but when they used the CI technique, the older participants recalled significantly greater detail without giving any false information.

Therefore, the CI can be used to ensure that all eyewitness testimony is as accurate as possible to avoid a possible age bias on recall.

It is important to keep the following caveat in mind:

Although cognitive interviews aim to increase the amount of information reported from an eyewitness, implementing this method of memory-enhancement does not necessarily guarantee accurate information. During the interview process it is not uncommon for an interviewee to succumb to a social desirability bias. This means that the witness alters their story or response in a way that they feel makes their answer more acceptable in the eyes of the interviewer as well as society. A meta-analysis indicates that accuracy is almost identical to standard interviews

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview

I guess I can see why they thought this "cognitive interview" would be persuasive, and maybe they managed to persuade themselves further by employing this tool, but this looks to me to be a much better investigative tool than it is a tool for establishing guilt. In other words, what I want my witnesses and victims of actual crimes to give me is more information, more detail. Sometimes that can be challenging to achieve. The technique looks really helpful for jogging a person's memory. What it does not provide is further accuracy if a witness is motivated to lie for some reason.

As an attorney recently said to me, the most reliable tool for determining the truth is cross examination, not a lie detector test. I think this comparison applies equally well to the relative unreliability of the cognitive interview for determining guilt. It would be valuable if, say, Rosebud had been the victim of a crime and police were in dire need of any clue or piece of information to catch the unknown perpetrator. In a he-said-she-said accusation motivated by a grudge and following an explicit threat by the accuser to make a false accusation, all this is, really, is theater. The rubes will listen to this and be impressed by Sheriff Puddy's deep sonorant voice and the jargon, and say, "Wow, maybe JD is a bad guy, after all! This is a cognitive interview, you know!"

[Res Ipsa]

This probably Rosebud’s best day, and it’s ask downhill from here. She’s dropped bits and pieces all over the internet. I wonder what the odds are that those bits and pieces are all consistent. It’s clear she didn’t go over the e-mails and texts before she made the recording, so there are going to be inconsistencies there.

And then she got sued over an unrelated franchise agreement and tried to make it about Dehlin? Sounds a little odd. I’m sure the internet sleuth squad will be digging into that one.

And whatever John’s held back on will likely come out, cuz what’s he got to lose now that she’s gone nuclear.

She has a very black and white view of the board members at the time, as if she thinks that anyone who doesn’t associate with John any more is on her side. Or maybe they’re just sick of them both and publicly spill their guts on what a pain in the ass they both were.

Anyway, enjoy your day, Rosebud. You’ve landed on a story that you’re stuck with.

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve never been clear on what happened with RBs complaint in New Hampshire. She says in the recording that Open Stories Foundation had six employees, which met the employee minimum for New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination.

I checked that against the Open Stories Foundation’s 990s, which is its Federal Tax return:

2011: 1 employee (Dehlin)
2012s. 2 employees (Dehlin and Rosebud)
2013: 2 employees (Dehlin and another board member)

Maybe if we add the three Nephites and Sasquatch we can get to six.

She also says Dehlin’s lawyer responded to her complaint by letter. Has anyone seen a copy of that?

ETA: She explains it toward the end. She had been counting independent contractors as employees. When the commission discovered there were only two actual employees, they dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

[Kishkumen]

I’ve never been clear on what happened with RBs complaint in New Hampshire. She says in the recording that Open Stories Foundation had six employees, which met the employee minimum for New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination.

I checked that against the Open Stories Foundation’s 990s, which is its Federal Tax return:

2011: 1 employee (Dehlin)
2012s. 2 employees (Dehlin and Rosebud)
2013: 2 employees (Dehlin and another board member)

Maybe if we add the three Nephites and Sasquatch we can get to six.

She also says Dehlin’s lawyer responded to her complaint by letter. Has anyone seen a copy of that?

If there were other employees, they would be documented on the 990 wouldn't they? Where are these four other employees? Does anyone have any suggestions for where we can look for these missing employees?

[consiglieri]

In response to a question previously asked, JD did not ask me to use Rosebud’s real name. Quite the reverse.

JD has been very concerned that Rosebud may harm herself if the texts and emails were made public.

In fact, only an hour before show time it was JD who pointed out the texts had Rosebud’s phone number on each one from her and was concerned about this.

This was in the context of my making sure it was okay to link the full documents in the show notes.

I told him it was a good catch and he got busy redacting all of them, getting us the finished document less than half an hour before we went live.

I thought carefully about whether we should use Rosebud’s real name, finally concluding that inasmuch as she had doxxed herself publicly on her own Facebook page for months, there could be no harm in doing so.

It was important to use her real name because of the links to the documents containing her name, but I would have not done so has she not done so first.

[consiglieri]

I will add that JD had absolutely no control over the content of the show, except for the redaction of the phone numbers.

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve never been clear on what happened with RBs complaint in New Hampshire. She says in the recording that Open Stories Foundation had six employees, which met the employee minimum for New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination.

I checked that against the Open Stories Foundation’s 990s, which is its Federal Tax return:

2011: 1 employee (Dehlin)
2012s. 2 employees (Dehlin and Rosebud)
2013: 2 employees (Dehlin and another board member)

Maybe if we add the three Nephites and Sasquatch we can get to six.

She also says Dehlin’s lawyer responded to her complaint by letter. Has anyone seen a copy of that?

If there were other employees, they would be documented on the 990 wouldn't they? Where are these four other employees? Does anyone have any suggestions for where we can look for these missing employees?

She explained at the end. She was counting independent contractors as employees.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

She was counting independent contractors as employees.

Oh. Well. That’s odd Rosebud operates outside of reality. A refresher for our future Ellen guest:

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-te ... d-employee

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

She explained at the end. She was counting independent contractors as employees.

OK. So she claims. Where was Open Stories Foundation incorporated? What was the law in that state? Does an independent contractor count toward the number of employees for the purpose of sexual harassment claims?

I mean, ugh, what is the deal with the ever shifting claims stories, dropped claims, revived claims . . . .

The whole thing is frankly exhausting and annoying. Rosebud has worn out so many people's good will along the way. This has all the appearance of a snipe hunt.