Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Jersey Girl]

It's avoidance of responsibility for his own actions.

Okay, now let me answer my own question. I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive if I misspeak.

The ONLY reason her name is all over the public record in the first place is because HER OWN FATHER PUT IT THERE.

How'd I do, RI?

[_Res Ipsa]

It's avoidance of responsibility for his own actions.

Okay, now let me answer my own question. I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive if I misspeak.

The ONLY reason her name is all over the public record in the first place is because HER OWN FATHER PUT IT THERE.

How'd I do, RI?

A+

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay, it's late and I might want to read this again tomorrow just to be rock solid sure, but I'll comment anyway.

I don't recall at the moment who the interviewer is in this transcript. The questioning techniques are appropriate and sound. There is no leading of the child in terms of convergent questions. That is to say, the questions are not intended to produce specific answers intended to converge toward a specific end goal. The interviewer established that the child understands the difference between what is important and what is unimportant. The interviewer asks open ended questions, "Tell me about"---open ended questions are absolutely critical in interviewing a child under these circumstances. The interviewer uses the child's terminology for body parts.

The only criticism I would make regarding the interviewer is that I didn't see where she established that the child knows the difference between fantasy/imaginary and reality. I might have missed it.

Two places that I think indicate that others might have influenced the child are 1) use of the word "pervert" and 2) that the adult in question shouldn't be a GA. The word "pervert" was accounted for. The second, is likely/possibly an adult comment made in the presence of the child.

Other than that, I think that the interview is solid. It was at least video taped, with the audio transcribed from either the video tape or with an audio recorder as a back up record. I'll read it over again tomorrow to see if my response changes on second read.

In my opinion, this transcript should have never seen the light of day or have been made accessible on the Internet.

Thanks for the assessment, Jersey Girl.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, RI. I haven't read every post on this thread. I gave up a couple of days or so ago when I was up to page 10 and the thread continued to grow before I was willing to play catch up. I'm pretty sure that you have kept up with it. I think it's because, like me, you like figuring things out.

In any case, I'm going to go out on a limb here, hold forth and give my testimony as it stands today regarding the whole nine yards. Keep in mind, this is just a Jersey Girl spit balling over here, okay?

1. I don't doubt that the child was abused.
2. I think there's a whopping case of co-dependency between husband and ex so thick you could cut it with a knife.
3. I think the case isn't prosecutable at a criminal level due to the statutes/criteria that you shared days ago.
4. I think that the father has a huge case of the ass for the ex, the GA, and the church.
5. I think that he's whipping everyone into a frenzy to draw attention to himself because he's a narcissistic asshole.
6. I think that if he were serious about seeking any sort of justice on behalf of the child, he'd try to bring action in a
civil suit.
7. He can't bring action in a civil suit for damages because he's traded the public frenzy whipping for taking the child to
a therapist who could possibly support suing for damages and also providing her with therapeutic options in the
process.
8. I think there is little to nothing to be gained and no purpose to be served by a thread such as this except to draw
attention to himself because if he wanted to advocate for his daughter, he'd be using conventional methods to do so.

How close did I get? Feel free to squash me like a bug if I'm way off base here.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, it's late and I might want to read this again tomorrow just to be rock solid sure, but I'll comment anyway.

I don't recall at the moment who the interviewer is in this transcript. The questioning techniques are appropriate and sound. There is no leading of the child in terms of convergent questions. That is to say, the questions are not intended to produce specific answers intended to converge toward a specific end goal. The interviewer established that the child understands the difference between what is important and what is unimportant. The interviewer asks open ended questions, "Tell me about"---open ended questions are absolutely critical in interviewing a child under these circumstances. The interviewer uses the child's terminology for body parts.

The only criticism I would make regarding the interviewer is that I didn't see where she established that the child knows the difference between fantasy/imaginary and reality. I might have missed it.

Two places that I think indicate that others might have influenced the child are 1) use of the word "pervert" and 2) that the adult in question shouldn't be a GA. The word "pervert" was accounted for. The second, is likely/possibly an adult comment made in the presence of the child.

Other than that, I think that the interview is solid. It was at least video taped, with the audio transcribed from either the video tape or with an audio recorder as a back up record. I'll read it over again tomorrow to see if my response changes on second read.

In my opinion, this transcript should have never seen the light of day or have been made accessible on the Internet.

Thanks for the assessment, Jersey Girl.

You're welcome. I didn't re-read the interview, but I seem to recall a couple of places where the interviewer changed the topic possibly prematurely, in order to get to the heart of the issues. But yes, the techniques were totally sound for the reasons that I stated.

[_Res Ipsa]

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

With just the police interview and the therapist's report, I would conclude it is likely that the witness is describing something she remembers. I would be agnostic as to the accuracy of the memory without further information. (From the fact that the memory is being recalled by a 12 year-old who is recalling events from 6-8 years before.)

In the real world, I wouldn't interview the grandfather with just that information. I'd want to get as complete a set of facts as I could before interviewing him. However, that would not change my stance in interviewing the grandfather. In the interview with him, I would communicate (through tone, substance, body language, etc.) that I was taking the granddaughter's story seriously and would ask detailed questions about his interactions with her.

I don't know whether the investigator is LDS. I would guess she was at the time.

The daughter and the other siblings had been hearing for for over a year that the mother and her family were bad people and liars that wanted to hurt their father. The therapist's report indicates the children had bought into that. The father told her and the other children that what the grandfather did was sexual abuse. I think that context alone makes the daughter's comments about her grandfather understandable.

[_Jersey Girl]

With just the police interview and the therapist's report, I would conclude it is likely that the witness is describing something she remembers. I would be agnostic as to the accuracy of the memory without further information. (From the fact that the memory is being recalled by a 12 year-old who is recalling events from 6-8 years before.)

I feel like I said this on one of these threads before. Meta memory starts kicking in around age 7/8 years of age. My best guess is that the child could possibly have recall of events that took place at or around age 6 and memories prior to about that age could possibly be present or fuzzy at best. But that's just a guess.

[_Jersey Girl]

Continuing on here, just offering my services and guesses as it were. According to the information provided, the adult in question used a variety of methods of distraction when the alleged acts took place. That is to say, that distraction techniques were used to distract others present and also the child in question.

It's highly possible that the child was barely aware of the sexual activity while it was taking place, due to the distraction and the child's own innocent nature. There are certainly some children who have the wherewithal to know that a series of activities or behaviors are wrong at a young age. In the case of child sexual abuse of the behaviors that have been described, it's unlikely that the child in question was aware that the behaviors were wrong until 1) an adult identified it as wrong or 2) the child hit puberty and began, with increasing awareness of sexuality, understood that the behaviors were wrong and sexual in nature. This is the exact reason why, in some states, that the clock for the statute of limitations in sexual abuse of children doesn't start ticking until the child realizes they were abused and affected by said abuse.

I think I just lost my train of thought, but I'll get back on the horse if/when I feel I need to.

[_Mary]

You asked Jersey Girl what the whole point of this was.
In a nutshell

Mickelsen attempted to put the culpability of this on her (and on her name), casting her as the "promiscuous" one. Her name was tainted through his actions alone. And now, thus far, about 50,000 people have read and/or seen on whose shoulder this perverse saga rightfully rests. She has no shame in this, and therefore happy to see her name being cleared, mainly for her extended family members to see--they who ostracized her simply because her statements aligned with his accusations of her. 

Here we are questioning rightly or wrongly, the wisdom of Ron and his daughter putting all the information out there, when actually at the centre of all this is a 63 year old man, a general authority, a respected member of his community, who has accused a kid of being promiscuous with him. Labelled that child as showing the same *promiscuous* proclivities as Darla Adams (oh look...Ron is respecting someone's privacy) and where the child remembers the details at age 12.

Given that the police, the psychologist and the church leaders didn't want to know. What else is left except to use the media?
If someone had taken this seriously then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[_Mary]

Continuing on here, just offering my services and guesses as it were. According to the information provided, the adult in question used a variety of methods of distraction when the alleged acts took place. That is to say, that distraction techniques were used to distract others present and also the child in question.

It's highly possible that the child was barely aware of the sexual activity while it was taking place, due to the distraction and the child's own innocent nature. There are certainly some children who have the wherewithal to know that a series of activities or behaviors are wrong at a young age. In the case of child sexual abuse of the behaviors that have been described, it's unlikely that the child in question was aware that the behaviors were wrong until 1) an adult identified it as wrong or 2) the child hit puberty and began, with increasing awareness of sexuality, understood that the behaviors were wrong and sexual in nature. This is the exact reason why, in some states, that the clock for the statute of limitations in sexual abuse of children doesn't start ticking until the child realizes they were abused and affected by said abuse.

I think I just lost my train of thought, but I'll get back on the horse if/when I feel I need to.

That makes sense.