Paul Rytting listened as a woman, voice quavering, told him her story.

When she was a child, her father, a former bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had routinely slipped into bed with her while he was aroused, she said.

It was March 2017 and Rytting offered his sympathies as 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich spoke. A Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division, Rytting had spent about 15 years protecting the organization, widely known as the Mormon church, from costly claims, including sexual abuse lawsuits.

Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. In particular, the church would discourage Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea’s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.

  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Irrelevant. That’s not what happened. No child abuse could have continued to occur because the confession was made over a decade later. This isn’t a case of protecting a child who is currently being abused. It’s about prosecuting a past instance of abuse.

    Like I said, reading comprehension. It’s like peoples brains melt when they see the word “Mormon” and they forget how to read.

    • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Downvotes don’t make you less right. Basic comprehension is a vanishing skill. And people don’t have the ability to think beyond their own narrow circumstance. There are reasons laws protecting criminals exist. People who fail to understand those reasons really don’t have valid opinions.