Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_kairos]

Having read the last output and carefully reading the interviews by the detective/investigators, i do agree with RK that mickleson was given preferenticial 'treatment" in the telephone interview. how in the world that detective would not ask him to go into detail his relationship with the granddaughter- like unto the questioning the granddaughter had to undergo. like " how old was the granddaughter when she began to sit on your lap- explain the games and gestures you played with her- did she seem to be uneasy and squirming" - not that mickleson would tell the truth ,he would not but get in to the details and tell him you are investigating a difficult subject and you must ask difficult questions and drive on with the interview. i am not sure she told mickleson she was going to recommend no charges ,RK says it is on the tape- that is out of order. the conference with the DA seemed to have not taken the granddaughter's testimony seriously, and note the granddaughter gave the same testimony to whomever she was talking to, indicating to me she had her story together.

now RK has no recourse but to go public with the core material but include the kitchen sink of extra family dysfunctions.

the gd is getting the short end of justice


k

[_Mary]

Having read the last output and carefully reading the interviews by the detective/investigators, i do agree with RK that mickleson was given preferenticial 'treatment" in the telephone interview. how in the world that detective would not ask him to go into detail his relationship with the granddaughter- like unto the questioning the granddaughter had to undergo. like " how old was the granddaughter when she began to sit on your lap- explain the games and gestures you played with her- did she seem to be uneasy and squirming" - not that mickleson would tell the truth ,he would not but get in to the details and tell him you are investigating a difficult subject and you must ask difficult questions and drive on with the interview. i am not sure she told mickleson she was going to recommend no charges ,RK says it is on the tape- that is out of order. the conference with the DA seemed to have not taken the granddaughter's testimony seriously, and note the granddaughter gave the same testimony to whomever she was talking to, indicating to me she had her story together.

now RK has no recourse but to go public with the core material but include the kitchen sink of extra family dysfunctions.

the gd is getting the short end of justice


k

What's also interesting is that the guy was sent down to Mexico and thus the phone conversation, when he would have been back for General Conference and could have been interviewed face to face then.

I appreciate that the police have had to pull their socks up on such matters. Practice is getting better here in the UK but big oversights and mistakes can still happen. For me, it is pretty obvious, in fact glaringly obvious that both Gale Stringham and the police officer were convinced Ron was making this up. The divorce animosity provided the perfect backdrop.

[_Mary]

The police interview with the daughter was problematic in my view, would like RIs comments on that as a professional?

[_Res Ipsa]

Having read the last output and carefully reading the interviews by the detective/investigators, i do agree with RK that mickleson was given preferenticial 'treatment" in the telephone interview. how in the world that detective would not ask him to go into detail his relationship with the granddaughter- like unto the questioning the granddaughter had to undergo. like " how old was the granddaughter when she began to sit on your lap- explain the games and gestures you played with her- did she seem to be uneasy and squirming" - not that mickleson would tell the truth ,he would not but get in to the details and tell him you are investigating a difficult subject and you must ask difficult questions and drive on with the interview. i am not sure she told mickleson she was going to recommend no charges ,RK says it is on the tape- that is out of order. the conference with the DA seemed to have not taken the granddaughter's testimony seriously, and note the granddaughter gave the same testimony to whomever she was talking to, indicating to me she had her story together.

now RK has no recourse but to go public with the core material but include the kitchen sink of extra family dysfunctions.

the gd is getting the short end of justice


k

Either Mickelsen was given preferential treatment or the police department has a practice of showing unconscionably preferential treatment to potential child abusers. I doubt people accused of even minor drug offenses get that kind of kid glove treatment.

I disagree about the DA conference. We know the outcome, but we know nothing about the process. We are also missing one key piece of evidence: Ron's recorded statement. I would like to know exactly what he told the police.

[_Res Ipsa]

What's also interesting is that the guy was sent down to Mexico and thus the phone conversation, when he would have been back for General Conference and could have been interviewed face to face then.

I appreciate that the police have had to pull their socks up on such matters. Practice is getting better here in the UK but big oversights and mistakes can still happen. For me, it is pretty obvious, in fact glaringly obvious that both Gale Stringham and the police officer were convinced Ron was making this up. The divorce animosity provided the perfect backdrop.

Well, we know that Mickelsen was in Mexico. We know nothing about the circumstances or the usual practices with assignments for the 70s. I do think the detective should have asked if he was going to be back in town any time soon and conducted a live interview.

I think there is pretty solid evidence that the police officer thought Ron was making the whole thing up. I strongly disagree about Stringham. I don't seen any evidence that she thought Ron was making it up. She treated the daughter's memory as genuine, and seemed to me to be focussed on helping the daughter cope with a pretty nasty situation. (Dad telling her she was abused; law enforcement telling her what happened wasn't abuse.)

I also have to add, it wasn't just the divorce animosity in general. It was Ron's practice of telling the children things to convince them that their mother and her family were liars out to hurt him.

[_Res Ipsa]

The police interview with the daughter was problematic in my view, would like RIs comments on that as a professional?

My experience is with interviews of adults. I consider interviewing children about child abuse a specialty that I have no training in. If I suspected that one of my children had been abused, I would take them to a trained professional with experience in that area. (Preferably, one who had been recognized by courts as an expert able to testify in such matters.)

I said upthread that I've started reading the exhibits before I read Ron's interpretation. I did that with the daughter's interview. I don't think the interview supports Ron's interpretation of the mechanics of what he claims was molestation. I think he has done what he has done with multiple pieces of evidence he has shown us: gone over and over and over them until he convinces himself that they say what he wants them to say.

I think to puzzle through this, you have to look at the documentation Ron has provided and play with it. You have to try to see the ways it could come together to tell different stories. If you just read it right after seeing Ron's interpretation, you'll see it through his eyes. But evidence can often tell different stories. And to figure out which story best fits the evidence, you have to try and find all the stories first.

I think there is a story that fits with the evidence we have today that ends with the conclusion that there was no sexual molestation. I think in some ways it fits the evidence we have better than Ron 2016s story. But I'd have to see some more evidence before having any opinion as to what is the true story. Specifically, the recorded statement Ron gave to the detective, the brief and supporting affidavits Ron filed that got him into hot water with the Commissioner, and Jensen's report.

[_Mary]

I need to go back to the secondary report of what Ron says his daughter told him, because in his opinion the police woman led K so that she wouldn't answer specific questions.

[_Res Ipsa]

I need to go back to the secondary report of what Ron says his daughter told him, because in his opinion the police woman led K so that she wouldn't answer specific questions.

The best evidence of that is in Ron's recorded statement, which he has not shown us.

[_kairos]

If you just read the granddaughter's interview with the police investigator and the interview she did with child services? -just those two what conclusion would you draw? how about: 12 year old girl remembers sitting on grandpa's lap from say 3-6 years old and she feels like the tickling and "games' made her uncomfortable at a minimum and uses the word perverted learned from her brother; she says she felt a "lump" beneath her clothing under her backside. then consider her testimony is consistent- she tells the same story even where it alleged to have happened, the swimsuit incidents, grandpa's routine of touching etc.
now just with that information, how are you going to interview mickleson? i get the feeling the little girl is not lying or making something up , so i would put some credibility in just her statements alone- wouldn't you?

then proceed to "grill" mickleson in a respectful but detailed way. by the way is it true the police investigator is lds?

finally if nothing bad happened why would she say she wanted mickleson to go away and she did not want to ever be near him?

k

[_Jersey Girl]

I consider interviewing children about child abuse a specialty that I have no training in. If I suspected that one of my children had been abused, I would take them to a trained professional with experience in that area. (Preferably, one who had been recognized by courts as an expert able to testify in such matters.)

Is there a link to a transcript I can read of the interview of the child?

ETA: Was the interview video taped?