Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Maksutov]

Maybe someone else has posted this...sorry if I haven't kept up on these threads. Brother Mickelson seems to have some timely views...several years ago:

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/art ... ublic.html

"He recounted from the Book of Mormon how Alma, the leader of the Church, pled with the Lord to know what to do when some members fell into sin. Alma's answer was that it is the Lord who will judge.

"Forgiveness of sin depends on Him, not on us," said Elder Mickelsen. "So the next time we are tempted to hang dirty linen in public, let us remember:

"First, go to the Lord.

"Second, go to the one we have offended.

"Third, if necessary, go to our judge in Israel and then put it away."

[_AmyJo]

Maybe someone else has posted this...sorry if I haven't kept up on these threads. Brother Mickelson seems to have some timely views...several years ago:

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/art ... ublic.html

"He recounted from the Book of Mormon how Alma, the leader of the Church, pled with the Lord to know what to do when some members fell into sin. Alma's answer was that it is the Lord who will judge.

"Forgiveness of sin depends on Him, not on us," said Elder Mickelsen. "So the next time we are tempted to hang dirty linen in public, let us remember:

"First, go to the Lord.

"Second, go to the one we have offended.

"Third, if necessary, go to our judge in Israel and then put it away."

As in, granddaughter, get off grandpa's lap you dirty little slut.

He took care of his dirty little problem before it became a bigger one by scapegoating an innocent child.

What a louse of a grandpa. These men that serve in SLC are not anointed. They're delusional.

[_Res Ipsa]

Given the fact that the girl was under the age of accountability, why do you reject the possibility that the grandfather was doing the right thing (ending the contact) but did so using a poor choice of words out of embarrassment or cultural conditioning? Am I right in recollecting that this comment was made exactly once in a phone call?

[_kairos]

Ok help me out here- grandpa gets an erection with the girl on his lap. what should then have happened?
take the little girl off his lap and calm down. never have the little girl on his lap again ever.

if and this is a big if grandpa mikkleson had an erection and began to seek,pursue, carryout any level of self gratification with the girl on his lap or fondled the girl, or placed the little girl's hand on his covered by clothes penis I would say if that happened just once sexual abuse occurred.

given that this guy said two girls were promiscuous with him and he had to put a stop to it by the phone call, indicates to me he let this activity go on much longer than he should have.

if he sought to get an erection by having the girl climb up on his lap i see abuse happening.

the comments on presexulaltion are very good and may apply here.

I think grandpa has a problem-if the erection happened only once and he took the girl off his lap immediately, I do not believe the girl would have any memory of the single incident because she would not be able to connect the dots. if it happened numerous times her memories would likely be there.

comments?

[_Res Ipsa]

I dunno Kairos. I'm afraid the facts here are so mucked up that we will never be able to figure out what happened with any level of confidence. Right now we've got two sources of information. First, the GA said something to his wife, who telephoned Karren's wife, who described the conversation to Karren, who is describing it to us. Ever play the "telephone" game? To make matters worse, the memories of all the participants in that series of events are very likely to be heavily influenced by what sounds like a pretty acrimonious divorce. Studies of the brain tell us that every time we remember a past event, the brain rewrites the memory, which alters the memory. The odds that any of these people accurately remember the exact conversations is extremely low.

Then, apparently, we have something that a 12 year old girl said to Karren about a memory of something that happened six years in the past. That conversation occurred during the acrimonious divorce after Karren had been making accusations against the grandfather for over a year. We don't know how careful the participants were to shield the daughter from these accusations, but the divorce file has some pretty stern warnings from the Court Commissioner about saying inappropriate things in front of the children. The father has been pushing this ever since, which likely means the kid has been forced to think about whatever memories she has over and over for eight years. The odds of her memories from when she was six (she is now around 20) being accurate are very low.

The best shot at getting close to the truth is probably in the family evaluation that was done during the divorce. Karren was making the accusation during the divorce, so the daughter was undoubtedly interviewed about what she recalled. But we don't have access to that, and we won't. All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims.

[_Rosebud]

I dunno Kairos. I'm afraid the facts here are so mucked up that we will never be able to figure out what happened with any level of confidence. Right now we've got two sources of information. First, the GA said something to his wife, who telephoned Karren's wife, who described the conversation to Karren, who is describing it to us. Ever play the "telephone" game? To make matters worse, the memories of all the participants in that series of events are very likely to be heavily influenced by what sounds like a pretty acrimonious divorce. Studies of the brain tell us that every time we remember a past event, the brain rewrites the memory, which alters the memory. The odds that any of these people accurately remember the exact conversations is extremely low.

Then, apparently, we have something that a 12 year old girl said to Karren about a memory of something that happened six years in the past. That conversation occurred during the acrimonious divorce after Karren had been making accusations against the grandfather for over a year. We don't know how careful the participants were to shield the daughter from these accusations, but the divorce file has some pretty stern warnings from the Court Commissioner about saying inappropriate things in front of the children. The father has been pushing this ever since, which likely means the kid has been forced to think about whatever memories she has over and over for eight years. The odds of her memories from when she was six (she is now around 20) being accurate are very low.

The best shot at getting close to the truth is probably in the family evaluation that was done during the divorce. Karren was making the accusation during the divorce, so the daughter was undoubtedly interviewed about what she recalled. But we don't have access to that, and we won't. All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims.

And in addition to the above, all the online speculation that, as far as I can tell is very unlikely to ever lead to fact, further harms the daughter by invading her privacy before she is old enough to really give her full consent. This demonstrates, at least to me, that Karren cares more about his own agenda than his child. The way he acted during his divorce seems to align with this assumption.

What is more important: his daughter healing from whatever abuse did occur regardless of who the perpetrator was (as it seems she was presexualized even if Mickelsen had nothing to do with it) or his revenge on the church, his ex-wife and his ex-wife's family.

This girl is an abuse victim. She doesn't owe the world the destruction of the church through a publicity stunt because her dad is angry.

[_Res Ipsa]

... the following persons who have access to more than his side of the story have rejected his claims:

1. The judge in his divorce trial
2. Law enforcement
3. Psychiatrists
4. The State Bar (on his suborning perjury claim)

All those folks had more information than Karran will ever give us.

...

And, um, the court gave him custody of the kids? Is that not a factor in forming an estimate of this situation? It does not exactly amount to 'rejecting his claims' does it, and in a matter central to most divorce proceedings too?

Sorry, Chap, I keep forgetting to comment on this. It looks from the court file like the parties stipulated to whatever the custody arrangement was. In general, the court will approve a residential schedule that the parents agree to. If there had been a trial, I would agree with you.

[_Lemmie]

All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims.

I must have missed this. (long thread!) Is there documentation on this?

[_Res Ipsa]

All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims.

I must have missed this. (long thread!) Is there documentation on this?

Lemmie, this is from Karren's first post on LAM:

This case, however, is far from anything typical (or difficult). Not only is hearsay removed from this case altogether, but the dots are as close as any pedophilia-dots could ever be. My daughter never accused Lynn A. Mickelsen of molesting her. He accused her and another family member of being promiscuous with him. As per connecting these simple dots: you, the public, get to assume the position of judge and jury in this case, because the attorneys, the judge, the psychiatrists, and law-enforcement, for some reason, were completely unable to connect those dots—in a case that didn’t even require any dot-connecting whatsoever—once again, because a 65-year old man accused two six-year old girls.

(emphasis mine)

In 2012, divorce court files in Utah were declared "private" except for court orders. That makes them inaccessible, at least online. I'm not clear on what I could see if I went to the courthouse. So, whatever the evaluation was, we can't see it. There is no indication that the court restricted contact between the girl and the grandfather.

[_AmyJo]

All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims.

I must have missed this. (long thread!) Is there documentation on this?

I don't know where Res Ipsy pulled his statement he says came from Karren about a mental health professional, because it isn't in the transcript that I shared, unless it's in Document B, but I don't recall it was there either.

His claims were not rejected, he just had a slug fest with the divorce courts like many ugly divorces before, since and after. His ex-wife's attorney was funded by Mickelson himself. She was the one who was caught attempting to suborn perjury, not Karran. It was because of Mickelson's attorney's dishonesty that Karran won full custody of his children, and his wife didn't contest anything at that point. She walked away from her kids.

What kind of mother would do that? Her dad was funding her lawyer, it wasn't because of a lack of funding. It had more to do with the culpability she and her attorney found themselves in with the perjury charges.

Karran's summarized his last statement with this: "Summary for this Section
It is no longer a He-said / She-said case. Both the grandfather (General Authority Lynn A. Mickelsen) and his wife (Jeanine Mickelsen Anderson) made equally unfair and damaging accusations against my daughter of being promiscuous with Elder Mickelsen. She has boldly stepped up and not counter-accused, but simply provided the details of the molestation, which go back to her earliest memories, up until the time when she was instructed not to sit on his lap (at age six).

We wholeheartedly and entirely agree with Elder Mickelsen: The was a long history of promiscuous activity between them. We only have one side of the story concerning what that promiscuous activity was. The LDS Church (and particularly the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) have allowed him to run and hide behind his General Authority title—as ensuing evidence releases will clearly show."

He's calling it molestation, not merely little girl sitting on grandpa's lap. Kylee, his daughter, is the one who will be disclosing what that involved, as the timeline unfolds. I don't understand why this is being parceled out, but maybe it's because he's still assembling the testimony. He's obviously going to write a book or do a tell all, since he's gone public with this. He isn't afraid of the Mickelsons or what the church might try to do to him.

He's said his daughter also wants to set the record straight. Guess we'll see what she has to say about that once we hear her side of it.