Mary wrote:Rosebud, not being obtuse here, or at least not trying to be. Ron wasn't at the meeting with Scott and the family, the son was because he was with his mum at the time as were all the children, and he remembers it. That meeting is not disputed by the mother in the taped transcript, who admits it -as well as admitting the afidavits were often false and unnecessary and that she didn't feel comfortable with it all. That suggests to me that Micklesen organised this and that Mickelsen was running scared.
I think that's what Ron felt, right or wrong which is why it is such a big deal to him.
Mercury I have tried to follow this from the beginning. There is a radio interview Ron did with Tyson, the video, and the papers he has already uploaded.
The basic facts of the case. They have a less than ideal marriage. Ron is laying it all out including his own faults and imperfections (which is why I disagree with Rosebud, he's not presenting himself as the saint here).
Micklesen phones his daughter asking that his granddaughter not sit on his lap as she is being promiscuous with him.
The parents comply. At the time of the phonecall the daughter is 6.
Mickelsen's daughter appears to have been abused - she puts it down to a Mexican grabbing her, but Ron suspects that she was abused by her father. They have a pretty awful sex life which comes to a halt with Ron giving up on sex with his wife (used by his wife as a divorce factor). Ron watches some strange activities with his wife and daughter bathing which leads him to suspect further the wife has some kind of historical dysfunction with sex abuse.
Scott organises a meeting for the family to sign affidavits against the father (Ron) when Jean asks for a divorce.
The divorce goes ahead, Ron is a crazy man. There's not enough evidence to convict Micklesen. Ron gets custody.
Fast forward a few years and Ron's daughter initiates a conversation with her father stating she remembers being abused by her grandfather. Ron makes an amateur video 3 years ago which no one watches till now. Spotlight probably acted as a catalyst.
Ron hasn't yet released his daughter's witness testimony. Micklesen hasn't responded. Ron appears to want Micklesen to
come clean.
Yes, that is the story he wants to build.
I am questioning both whether or not he is really building it and the manner In which he is building it. I am doing so for the purpose of drawing attention not only to the issues real victims in this case face, but also the real issues real victims in other cases face. I am even wanting to draw attention to the ease at which the entire story can be discredited because it sounds crazy. I am saying, at the same time, that I believe something happened, but that I don't think we'll get an accurate presentation of what that really was. I am wanting to communicate that the discrepancy between accusations and what is publicized and what really happened may be significant and may even misrepresent the situation to the extent that it misrepresents who all the perpetrators really are and were.
This is a mess and Karren's attacks of his ex and his method of communication are not helpful beyond that they offer an interesting opportunity to dissect the common credibility issues and the conundrum Mormon victims face. Karren is approaching this as if the Mormon problem can be brought to light in the same way the Catholic problem was brought to light. There are at least two distinct differences between the Mormon problem and the Catholic problem: 1) the Mormon problem is family-based (Mikelsen is family, not a random priest), and 2) Morminism has a lay clergy and ward members volunteer in all sorts of random callings that give them access to kids without enough oversight and child abuse prevention policies in place. Exposing Karren's family dysfunction is mostly unfortunate to the victims.
One of my points is that if this is what Karren is saying, I believe he has a moral obligation to the victims to spell it out as simply as you did and to provide immediate and adequate evidence of his claims. The current method he is using is abusive and discredits him and, by extension, real victims of abuse.
To be blunt, I don't think Karren is capable of communicating it as simply as you just did. It looks to me like he may have high-functioning autism (Asperger's) and Narcicissuatic personality disorder (as RI suggested): Narsbergers. He is making many mistakes in reasoning, comprehension of others' intentions, and is basically acting like an abusive asshole. His mistakes in understanding others' intentions do, in fact, discredit his interpretation of events because he may have built his overall understanding on a cumulative series of miscomprehension of social situations based on his diminished capacity to perspective take. He doesn't know how to begin with a thesis and then provide evidence (commun communication problem of high-functioning autism..... they ramble). He doesn't understand the very basic fact that the fact that his wife left him after 17 years and needed help from her family is just as much proof that he was abusive as it is that anyone else was abusive.
Even if Karren were capable of spelling it out simply and appropriately and providing evidence, I am not sure it would hold water. This does look to me like another Martha Beck fiasco in the making, only worse: he's maliciously further harming victims and everybody is still alive. He didn't write a book and spend time editing his words with help from attorneys. I would assume Beck at least had legal counsel look at her entire product before okaying its publication.