Mary wrote:This was Ron's response to me. I have asked him twice now because like others my concern was for the children, and actually for the privacy of the wife. The children have given their permission. The ex wife has not.
Thank you for your concern Mary; this last "push" on my part was made at her request. (She wanted to do a blog for other victims, to clear her name, etc.). She is actively reading these posts, and quite satisfied in the fact that her name is being cleared while her grandfather is still alive to see it.
Do you realize how his statement doesn't make sense? Read it until you see it or maybe I'm seeing things?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Exiled wrote:I don't think you can attribute this to only "faulty memory." Why did he wait so long to bring this out if it existed? Why now? Why didn't he do anything at the time of the call? Why was it only in the context of a divorce case that these unsubstantiated allegations arose? Why didn't he have counsel representing him in this? Was if because he couldn't substantiate his pet allegations?
It looks invented and it looks like he couched his daughter into the "faulty memory" of an exaggerated lap incident. This was probably done as a reaction to highly contested divorce proceedings. Many have done the same thing as Mr. Karren when they are faced with divorce and many will continue to do so in the future. It's sad that people go to the level of dragging their children into these invented stories but that is the reality of family court.
Okay. Call came when child was six. No more sitting on grandpa's lap (this was strictly adhered to). Ron probably thinks...well that's creepy. I would think...that's creepy. Ron's marriage is going down the pan. He tells Micklesen before the divorce that he believes J's problems are due to him. Mickelsen's offer of money leads Ron to think that he may have abused J. J takes kids. 60 pages of affidavits are filed stating Ron is an awful person. Those family members giving Ron a positive character witness are warned off by church leaders including Micklesen. In 2012 K, Ron's daughter remembers why she couldn't sit on grandpa's lap. Ron is shocked and angered. His suspicions are confirmed. No one will listen. Ron goes public 3 years ago by producing a video which is uploaded to youtube. 2016 - people notice, Ron is asked by his daughter to release documents so as to bring a wider awareness to the case.
I think you're missing some important evidence. Mostly, you are leaving out the fact that something happened between Ron and Jean that lead her to tell Ron he was "over the line" and to talk to her bishop, some kind of professional, and her father about a divorce. What was that thing? Well, we know she put into evidence a picture of a bruise and said that Ron had given it to her. We don't know exactly, because Ron has only told us about it. We know that the eldest son said in an affidavit in 2012 that he had read in the court file something like seven different versions of a story about his dad hitting his mother. Have you seen any of those? I think there is evidence to support that what led Jean to talk to her father about the divorce was Ron hitting her. Or at least something of that magnitude.
That gives some context to Mickelsen dropping in to see Ron at his place of business and asking about how his marriage is going. Both men know that Jean has gone to her father about a divorce. Ron puts a sinister slant on the visit, interpreting Mickelsen as offering him hush money. But it looks much more like a concerned father perhaps trying to find out what's going on in his daughter's marriage and see if he can help in some way.
Ron has taken people who, if we have the context, acted in perfectly understandable ways, and has today reinterpreted their actions in a much more sinister way. That doesn't make him a bad person. It doesn't make him evil. But it does affect his reliability as a story teller.
ETA: the daughter first gave her account in 2008, not 2012. The earliest documentation I can find of what Ron says in his current story is 2012.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Mary wrote:This was Ron's response to me. I have asked him twice now because like others my concern was for the children, and actually for the privacy of the wife. The children have given their permission. The ex wife has not.
Thank you for your concern Mary; this last "push" on my part was made at her request. (She wanted to do a blog for other victims, to clear her name, etc.). She is actively reading these posts, and quite satisfied in the fact that her name is being cleared while her grandfather is still alive to see it.
Thanks for your response, but I've seen the context on Facebook in which he made that statement and your use of it here doesn't answer my question. He was responding to your question below:
Ron, there appears to be a few commentators who do not want me to use Kylees name. Can I ask again. Do you have Kylees permission to use her name. If not I will omit in any discussions elsewhere.
Maybe your post after mine wasn't meant to answer me (not sure since you didn't quote me); if so, my question still stands:
Just to clarify, is this known as a fact? Or is the known part only that Ron said his daughter asked him to release documents? I'm not being suspicious, it's just that it makes a difference when reading these posts to have things like this stated exactly factually.
This is a huge thread and I've tried to keep up, but if I just missed something and you were simply listing the timeline as specifically given by Ron, could you clarify that? Thanks.
Lemmie, I haven't seen any direct communication from the daughter anywhere.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Well having worked with, not as a lawyer, but as a hands on supporter of men and women sexually abused by rc priests, it is hardly ever the case that a pedophile has only 1 victim. This has come out time and time again particularly in civil lawsuit depositions where those subpoenaed must answer all questions under oath. The depositions helped determine the damage a pedophile caused to one or usually several or more victims. As the Mormon case of the Brother Curtis , Curtis molested probably 30 young boys and girls up to about 4-6th grade. There were also allegations toward Curtis against very small children when he was "babysitting " for Mormon families.
Was the Mickleson clan a large one with lots of grandkids about? If so and if Mickleson is an abuser, he would not stop at one, and incest is also not out of the question.
To bring all of this under "truth control" RK and his daughter need to file a civil lawsuit, finding a lawyer who will work on contingency- now if the Mormon church gets involved with their lawyers, I would not recommend going forward because the Kirton -McConkie law team has been extremely effective keeping cases out of court and settlements low.
Whether the statue of limitations has expired and the Utah laws might favor predators, then going to Facebook or a blog is about all RK can get until someone on the other side picks up the gauntlet and challenges him.
kairos wrote:Well having worked with, not as a lawyer, but as a hands on supporter of men and women sexually abused by rc priests, it is hardly ever the case that a pedophile has only 1 victim. This has come out time and time again particularly in civil lawsuit depositions where those subpoenaed must answer all questions under oath. The depositions helped determine the damage a pedophile caused to one or usually several or more victims. As the Mormon case of the Brother Curtis , Curtis molested probably 30 young boys and girls up to about 4-6th grade. There were also allegations toward Curtis against very small children when he was "babysitting " for Mormon families.
Was the Mickleson clan a large one with lots of grandkids about? If so and if Mickleson is an abuser, he would not stop at one, and incest is also not out of the question.
To bring all of this under "truth control" RK and his daughter need to file a civil lawsuit, finding a lawyer who will work on contingency- now if the Mormon church gets involved with their lawyers, I would not recommend going forward because the Kirton -McConkie law team has been extremely effective keeping cases out of court and settlements low.
Whether the statue of limitations has expired and the Utah laws might favor predators, then going to Facebook or a blog is about all RK can get until someone on the other side picks up the gauntlet and challenges him.
k
I don't think the statute has run. As I understand it, the daughter should have four years from when she turns 18 or recalls the abuse, whichever happens later. I believe she is currently 20.
Based on all you've read, would you take the case on a contingent fee?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
I cannot keep up with all these postings, even though I started said thread. It has taken on a life of its own.
Carry on, foot soldiers, for the cause of truth, justice, and the American way.
Something tells me this thread is not going to find closure anytime soon. What does that say about Ron Karran and his family? I hope they fare better than this thread has.
RI, the only evidence I can find of Ron hitting J is where Micklesen claims Ron threw her on the bed and attempted to strangle her. She later totally denies to her son that that ever happened. (In the taped interview).
Ron has put up another link. I will let someone else put it on here. Nothing too out of the ordinary, just the closing of ranks against Ron.
What did interest me is that Ron claims that an experienced and retired LDS psychiatrist told him that Micklesen was the tip of the iceberg when it came to hiding pedophilia in the church.
We do learn of Ron's allegations that J wasn't faithful in the marriage. She appears to have had no ecclesiastical punishment for this. Again, in my knowledge of lds royal families, as long as they stay loyal to the church, they do seem to operate under different rules than the rest of us.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
The things Ron appears to concentrate on (probably as a coping mechanism for deep trauma in all this, but none the less significant)
After the visit from Micklesen (pre divorce) he becomes convinced J... was abused by him. The claims that K was promiscuous from 2002 has weighed on his mind greatly in the intervening period. He blames Micklesen for orchestrating the divorce. (Given that J states she loves Ron *taped meeting with son* and didn't want a divorce there may be some truth to that) He doesn't have any contact with K after she tells her dad what went on in February of 2008, for fear of being accused of influencing her.
The police handling of this was dreadful.
Last edited by Schreech on Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
