Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Res Ipsa]

AmyJo, it's clear that you actually don't read anything I post. The answer to the first line in your post is found in my post right above yours. It's a quote from Kerran.

Kerran made his pedophilia accusations in the divorce proceeding. He says himself that the "attorneys, judge, the psychiatrists, and law enforcement" failed to connect the dots that he has connected. Last I checked, a psychiatrist was a "mental health professional."

All you've done in your many posts is repeat Karren's claims as absolute and incontrovertible fact without any basis for doing so. He's a guy on the internet who's posted a youtube video and a couple of posts. Geez, do you treat Nigerian Prince scammers as trustworthy, too?

The girl may well have been sexually abused 14 years ago. If she was, it may have been her grandfather. It may have been someone else. It may even have been her father. I don't know and neither do you. But you keep claiming you do just based on this guy's say so.

If the grandfather did abuse her, I'm all for stringing him up by his balls.

[_Lemmie]

Thank you for the update.

So much of this case seems undocumented (or documentation is unavailable), however, since children are/were involved, I don't have a problem with that, as privacy issues are paramount.

In the end, the thing that continues to trouble me is the accusation that children 'were promiscuous' from age 3 to 6. That's simply not possible, in the end hopefully that statement will be clarified.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thank you for the update.

So much of this case seems undocumented (or documentation is unavailable), however, since children are/were involved, I don't have a problem with that, as privacy issues are paramount.

In the end, the thing that continues to trouble me is the accusation that children 'were promiscuous' from age 3 to 6. That's simply not possible, in the end hopefully that statement will be clarified.

I don't recall seeing that claim in print. I'm going off what Karren has said in his posts. Where did you see it?

[Guest]

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. K***** (EDIT), 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.

And once she matures another 10 - 20 years and has the life experience to look at her dad and the decisions he's making right now from the perspective of an equal.

EDIT: ***** in quote

[_Lemmie]

Thank you for the update.

So much of this case seems undocumented (or documentation is unavailable), however, since children are/were involved, I don't have a problem with that, as privacy issues are paramount.

In the end, the thing that continues to trouble me is the accusation that children 'were promiscuous' from age 3 to 6. That's simply not possible, in the end hopefully that statement will be clarified.

I don't recall seeing that claim in print. I'm going off what Karren has said in his posts. Where did you see it?

I didn't see it in print either, other than in this thread. That's my main issue, even if that statement can be technically verified it can't possibly be true. Toddlers and pre-schoolers can't be 'promiscuous'.

[_Rosebud]

Also, the fact that Micklesen funded the divorce is not evidence against Micklesen, it's evidence against Karren. Why did his wife need to go to her father for money? Was Karren restricting her access to money in an attempt to force her to stay in the marriage? Men (or women, but it's generally breadwinning men who try this tactic) who control money to force their wives to stay aren't generally men worth being married to.

And gaining primary custody through any legal tactic is harmful to children. It should have been about what was best for the kids, not about what was best for Karren

Edit: changed a pronoun to a name for specificity

[Guest]

I'll try to find it and track it down. Keep in mind, though, that 14 years ago, the grandfather said something to his wife, who called and said something to Kerran's wife, who said something to Kerran's, who is describing that something to us.

ETA: This was a reply to Lemmie.

[_AmyJo]

AmyJo, it's clear that you actually don't read anything I post. The answer to the first line in your post is found in my post right above yours. It's a quote from Kerran.

Kerran made his pedophilia accusations in the divorce proceeding. He says himself that the "attorneys, judge, the psychiatrists, and law enforcement" failed to connect the dots that he has connected. Last I checked, a psychiatrist was a "mental health professional."

All you've done in your many posts is repeat Karren's claims as absolute and incontrovertible fact without any basis for doing so. He's a guy on the internet who's posted a youtube video and a couple of posts. Geez, do you treat Nigerian Prince scammers as trustworthy, too?

The girl may well have been sexually abused 14 years ago. If she was, it may have been her grandfather. It may have been someone else. It may even have been her father. I don't know and neither do you. But you keep claiming you do just based on this guy's say so.

If the grandfather did abuse her, I'm all for stringing him up by his balls.

You made the statement "All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims." Failing to connect the dots as Karran says is not the same as rejecting his claims, which is as you state. So you took what he said out of context and gave it a different interpretation from what he said. If you tell me the day is cloudy, but I don't see through the same window that you do, I don't connect the dots per se. But it doesn't mean I'm rejecting what you just said.

I'm not leaping to conclusions, why are you making false judgments and accusations against me? You're starting to sound like Tobin.

I don't believe what you say just because you say it's so. Nor do I believe Karran just because he says it's so. What I am doing is giving him the benefit of the doubt until and unless he proves us wrong. He is on a road to redemption - both his and his daughter's. I'm waiting to see where that leads.

[_Res Ipsa]

AmyJo, it's clear that you actually don't read anything I post. The answer to the first line in your post is found in my post right above yours. It's a quote from Kerran.

Kerran made his pedophilia accusations in the divorce proceeding. He says himself that the "attorneys, judge, the psychiatrists, and law enforcement" failed to connect the dots that he has connected. Last I checked, a psychiatrist was a "mental health professional."

All you've done in your many posts is repeat Karren's claims as absolute and incontrovertible fact without any basis for doing so. He's a guy on the internet who's posted a youtube video and a couple of posts. Geez, do you treat Nigerian Prince scammers as trustworthy, too?

The girl may well have been sexually abused 14 years ago. If she was, it may have been her grandfather. It may have been someone else. It may even have been her father. I don't know and neither do you. But you keep claiming you do just based on this guy's say so.

If the grandfather did abuse her, I'm all for stringing him up by his balls.

You made the statement "All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims." Failing to connect the dots as Karran says is not the same as rejecting his claims, which is as you state. So you took what he said out of context and gave it a different interpretation from what he said. If you tell me the day is cloudy, but I don't see through the same window that you do, I don't connect the dots per se. But it doesn't mean I'm rejecting what you just said.

I'm not leaping to conclusions, why are you making false judgments and accusations against me? You're starting to sound like Tobin.

I don't believe what you say just because you say it's so. Nor do I believe Karran just because he says it's so. What I am doing is giving him the benefit of the doubt until and unless he proves us wrong. He is on a road to redemption - both his and his daughter's. I'm waiting to see where that leads.

Karren made his pedophilia accusation in the divorce action. If they didn't accept it, which he acknowledges, they rejected it. You can play word games all you want. It doesn't change what happened.

You haven't just been giving Karren the benefit of the doubt: you have repeatedly presented Karren's claims as fact. Your posts on this subject are full of conclusions that you've leapt to. Everyone can read them.

I''d be very happy to let folks read the most recent thread in Telestial to see which of us acts more like Tobin.

[_Res Ipsa]

AmyJo, it's clear that you actually don't read anything I post. The answer to the first line in your post is found in my post right above yours. It's a quote from Kerran.

Kerran made his pedophilia accusations in the divorce proceeding. He says himself that the "attorneys, judge, the psychiatrists, and law enforcement" failed to connect the dots that he has connected. Last I checked, a psychiatrist was a "mental health professional."

All you've done in your many posts is repeat Karren's claims as absolute and incontrovertible fact without any basis for doing so. He's a guy on the internet who's posted a youtube video and a couple of posts. Geez, do you treat Nigerian Prince scammers as trustworthy, too?

The girl may well have been sexually abused 14 years ago. If she was, it may have been her grandfather. It may have been someone else. It may even have been her father. I don't know and neither do you. But you keep claiming you do just based on this guy's say so.

If the grandfather did abuse her, I'm all for stringing him up by his balls.

You made the statement "All we have is Karren's statement that whatever mental health professional was involved at the time rejected Karren's claims." Failing to connect the dots as Karran says is not the same as rejecting his claims, which is as you state. So you took what he said out of context and gave it a different interpretation from what he said. If you tell me the day is cloudy, but I don't see through the same window that you do, I don't connect the dots per se. But it doesn't mean I'm rejecting what you just said.

I'm not leaping to conclusions, why are you making false judgments and accusations against me? You're starting to sound like Tobin.

I don't believe what you say just because you say it's so. Nor do I believe Karran just because he says it's so. What I am doing is giving him the benefit of the doubt until and unless he proves us wrong. He is on a road to redemption - both his and his daughter's. I'm waiting to see where that leads.

Karren made his pedophilia accusation in the divorce action. If they didn't accept it, which he acknowledges, they rejected it. You can play word games all you want. It doesn't change what happened.

You haven't just been giving Karren the benefit of the doubt: you have repeatedly presented Karren's claims as fact. Your posts on this subject are full of conclusions that you've leapt to. Everyone can read them.

I''d be very happy to let folks read the most recent thread in Telestial to see which of us acts more like Tobin.