Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[Schreech]

Jersey Girl, I can give my experience as a juror. The victims (there were more than one)were recalling abuse from very young ages. They tended to remember feelings, fear, the pattern on the curtains, the smells. They all remembered what was done, but the context was different. In bed, daddy, uncle, baby sitter pays them a visit.

The prosecution attempted to poo poo their testimomies because of the time factor, but because there was more than one victim, the stories were broadly consistent, they followed a pattern and they went on for a longer period of time it was a more straightforward case.

I assume and think I read somewhere that Ron had attempted some follow up with Darla Adams but she didn't wish to proceed. A pity if true.

[_Jersey Girl]

The first evidence we have of the daughter being taken to a mental health professional is the therapist during the divorce.

And, if you don't mind doing my homework for me, how far out is that from the initial assertions by the GA?

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, I can give my experience as a juror. The victims (there were more than one)were recalling abuse from very young ages. They tended to remember feelings, fear, the pattern on the curtains, the smells. They all remembered what was done, but the context was different. In bed, daddy, uncle, baby sitter pays them a visit.

The prosecution attempted to poo poo their testimomies because of the time factor, but because there was more than one victim, the stories were broadly consistent, they followed a pattern and they went on for a longer period of time it was a more straightforward case.

I assume and think I read somewhere that Ron had attempted some follow up with Darla Adams but she didn't wish to proceed. A pity if true.

I am a primary school teacher with 20 years experience behind me. I have also mentored trainee teachers, been a governor and did 3 years of post grad work in child development. I have never been SENCO but we did receive somewhat inadequate (in my opinion) training in how to look for abuse and neglect. I am currently retired.

Then why aren't you addressing the lack of action on the part of the parents to seek therapeutic options for the child early on, at the very least a consult with a mental healthcare professional, and the futility of what is going on today in the public forum?

Because every bit of this is an exercise of futility in terms of addressing the victim of said alleged abuse. Do you not see that, Mary? There is no viable outcome to be had except perhaps (so far as I can tell), RK being slapped with a defamation suit by the GA in question. That ship sailed years ago and the only result that I can possibly think of in RK relating these details is that he keeps squeezing the toothpaste tube and that isn't a realistic way to address the needs and rights of the child, now adult, victim.

I cannot address your experiences as juror in observing and considering child testimony without knowing the specific ages of the children when the alleged abuse was to have taken place, the nature of the abuse, the age of reports, methods of reporting, ages that the testimony was given, etc. I've never served as a juror, much less for child abuse/neglect cases, and I never will have that experience.

[_Res Ipsa]

The first evidence we have of the daughter being taken to a mental health professional is the therapist during the divorce.

And, if you don't mind doing my homework for me, how far out is that from the initial assertions by the GA?

Don't mind at all. Six years.

However, the evidence about the "assertions" is, in my opinion, unreliable.

[_Jersey Girl]

And, if you don't mind doing my homework for me, how far out is that from the initial assertions by the GA?

Don't mind at all. Six years.

However, the evidence about the "assertions" is, in my opinion, unreliable.

When you say that the evidence is unreliable is that because the alleged conversation took place privately and between family members who later found an axe to grind against each other in the divorce case?

I need to get off this thread, seriously, the fact that I believe that all of this is to no good end for the victim just pisses me off beyond my ability to express it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Mary,

One more time and only because now I'm pissed off that I've invested time on this thread.

What do you see as the purpose of all of this?
What do you see as the end goal?

What possible viable outcome do you think can be had as a result of this thread, the Facebook page, the blog entries?

What?

[_Mary]

Jersey Girl, because even though you believe I am misguided, I do not have the certainty of how the parent and daughter *should* be proceeding. I genuinely trust that both the daughter and the father are doing what is right for them as a family.

I think this snippet from an article I have been reading expresses my own uncertainty when it comes to media usage in the internet age.

As Hutson and Liddiard (1994: 73) note, media representations of social problems are important not least because of the impact such representations have on "public attitudes". Writing of youth homelessness, they argue that the stories provided by the media are the "main source of information" for most people (1994: 73).Child abuse, it may be argued, is no different. According to Goddard (1994: 9): "Every development in knowledge of the problem of child abuse has been accompanied by disagreements about definitions to be used, the incidence of the problem, theoretical approaches to causation, the perpetrators of abuse, the effects on victims, efficient approaches to practice, the adequacy of child protection policies, and the appropriateness of methodologies chosen to ascertain the ‘truth’ about all of the above."These "discrepancies" have increasingly been fought out in the broader media as well as in professional journals, to the extent that it has been claimed that the media’s influence over child protection policy is far greater than that of the professionals working in the field (Goddard 1998).At the same time, there has been yet another media and communication revolution. According to O’Shaughnessy (1999: 3): "Satellite and cable communications, digital television, computers, video games, virtual reality, and the Internet are again changing our patterns of behaviour, our modes of accessing knowledge, our entertainment, and our ways of seeing the world and interacting with one another. We truly live in a "media-world."

[_Res Ipsa]

When you say that the evidence is unreliable is that because the alleged conversation took place privately and between family members who later found an axe to grind against each other in the divorce case?

I need to get off this thread, seriously, the fact that I believe that all of this is to no good end for the victim just pisses me off beyond my ability to express it.

1. The only person who claims that Mickelsen called the daughter's behavior "promiscuous" is Ron.
2. Ron was not a party to the phone call.
3. The use of the term as described by Ron is odd -- the word doesn't really fit.
4. The first time in the documentary evidence that Ron makes this claim is in 2012 -- ten years after the phone call and four years after his daughter tells him the story about the grandfather.
5. Ron was interviewed by the therapist, but her report does not mention the phone all.
6. Ron was interviewed by the police detective, but her summary of the interview does not mention the phone call.
7. The first mention of the phone call in the documents is in the notes of Jean's call with the police detective. There is no mention of the word
"promiscuous" She describes the reason given by one or both of her parents as the daughter being too old to sit on the grandfather's lap.
8. The first appearance of the word "promiscuous" in the documents was something said by Jean in reference to her cousin, not her daughter. The context was not a discussion of the phone call. Jean's use of the word makes sense in context.
9. Ron displays a consistent pattern of confabulation, especially when I contrast the documents from 2006-2008 with the story he begins to tell in 2012.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

At this point I absolutely don't believe a word Ron Karren has said about this child abuse. I know the fantasist AmyJo is on board, and for some reason Mary, who seems to be relatively sober-minded is on board, but this man is so up his own ass and has such a hard-on for his ex-wife and her family (because, god forbid, they got her out of a controlling and abusive relationship with Ron Karren) he'll go to no ends and throw his own children under the bus to “F” with his ex-in-laws.

The man is a pig.

And this is coming from an ex-Mormon atheist.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, because even though you believe I am misguided, I do not have the certainty of how the parent and daughter *should* be proceeding. I genuinely trust that both the daughter and the father are doing what is right for them as a family.

I think this snippet from an article I have been reading expresses my own uncertainty when it comes to media usage in the internet age.

As Hutson and Liddiard (1994: 73) note, media representations of social problems are important not least because of the impact such representations have on "public attitudes". Writing of youth homelessness, they argue that the stories provided by the media are the "main source of information" for most people (1994: 73).Child abuse, it may be argued, is no different. According to Goddard (1994: 9): "Every development in knowledge of the problem of child abuse has been accompanied by disagreements about definitions to be used, the incidence of the problem, theoretical approaches to causation, the perpetrators of abuse, the effects on victims, efficient approaches to practice, the adequacy of child protection policies, and the appropriateness of methodologies chosen to ascertain the ‘truth’ about all of the above."These "discrepancies" have increasingly been fought out in the broader media as well as in professional journals, to the extent that it has been claimed that the media’s influence over child protection policy is far greater than that of the professionals working in the field (Goddard 1998).At the same time, there has been yet another media and communication revolution. According to O’Shaughnessy (1999: 3): "Satellite and cable communications, digital television, computers, video games, virtual reality, and the Internet are again changing our patterns of behaviour, our modes of accessing knowledge, our entertainment, and our ways of seeing the world and interacting with one another. We truly live in a "media-world."

Mary,

Listen with your eyes. You are missing the forest for the trees! You're looking all around the situation instead of viewing it dead on!

I asked you these questions in an attempt to identify the end goal as you see it. Here they are again.

Use the media to do what?

The media isn't going to sue the GA.
The media isn't going to change the state statutes.
The media isn't a therapeutic option for the victim.
The media isn't going to change any damn thing.

Based on the quote that you posted, here is my Reader's Digest take on that. If RK wants to bring attention to child abuse reporting then he needs to affiliate himself with something like friggin CASA.

There are advocacy groups all over the nation for him to take part in. If he wants to bring attention to the failure on the part of the church to appropriately handle child abuse reporting, then I'm sure there's a victims rights group that would welcome his participation.

A blog? Facebook? A message board? That's amateurish and ineffective as hell in producing ANY meaningful result on behalf of the victim.

Nothing I see here has any sort of viable end goal for the victim in question except for the fact that a father (I'm going to yell now, don't say I didn't warn you) is plastering the details of an UNTREATED VICTIM's early and alleged sexual abuse all over the freaking Internet. An untreated victim whose needs have been NEGLECTED by her family as she navigated childhood, puberty, young adulthood and every relationship that she involved herself in, up to and including becoming sexually active WITHOUT the BENEFIT OF THERAPY. Mary, you're an educator for god sakes. Do you understand that the victim in question hasn't received therapy and likely remains in a vulnerable/malleable state?

Think about it, Mary.

You wrote,

I genuinely trust that both the daughter and the father are doing what is right for them as a family.

You're pissing me off, Mary, but don't let that stop you. Trust what they're doing is "right for them as a family"? In what way? I challenge you Mary, to visualize the now adult victim of early alleged sexual abuse sitting before you with the child she was sitting beside her and TELL ME how does any of this serve the child or the young woman she became?

LOOK at her, Mary! Look at the child and the young woman. Look at her without the father in the picture. Without the mother. Without the siblings, without the grandparents, and without the bloody CHURCH.

How is this helping HER in ANY meaningful or long term way?