Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_AmyJo]

Mickelsen Case: The General Authority's Accusation - LDS Church Child Abuse Cover Up
Posted by Ron Karren on February 20, 2016 at 6:16pm

MICKELSEN CASE
TIMELINE/EVIDENCES/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
02 PART 1: THE GENERAL AUTHORITY’S ACCUSATION

The simplicity of this case comes down to the accusation levied by the General Authority (Lynn A. Mickelsen) against the two girls, which alleged promiscuous exchanges took place when the two girls were 6 years old (according to his accusation).

On October 6, 2002 after the last session of General Conference, my wife (Jean Mickelsen Berger) took a call from her parents (Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen and his wife, Jeanine Anderson Mickelsen). This “phone call tradition” normally took place at the end of each General Conference (unless we happened to be attending the live session with them).

Upon entering the den, Jean informed me that she had just gotten off the phone with mom and dad, and “they instructed me that we need to sit Kylee down and tell her that she can no longer sit on his lap” because:
1) She has been way too physical with him; and,
2) She has been showing the same promiscuous patterns as Darla Adams (this is a fictitious name because Darla too is a victim, and although I have contacted her regarding the accusation against her, she has not yet stepped forward on her own accord.)
Jean then continued;
3) Mom said that when Darla was the same age as Kylee (that would be age 6), she was all over my dad.
Jean went on to explain;
4) Darla eventually got pregnant in high school.

It was the grandmother’s (Jeanine Mickelsen’s) attempt to justify her husband’s (the General Authority’s) claim against my daughter Kylee.
We then sat our daughter down and softened up the story for her saying, “Sweetheart, we think that you are getting a little too old to be sitting on grandpa’s lap; and we need you to stop doing that.”

At THIS point in time, this entire conversation was hearsay. And, all I had to go on was the witness of my ex-wife who took the phone call. If she denied the phone call ever took place, then chances were slim my daughter could obtain justice. This should give the average reader, who has never had to deal with pedophilia, an idea of how difficult it is to not just come forward, but to be successful against the perpetrators once you have come forward. And, unless I had the collaboration of my ex-wife regarding this accusation by her father, all I could do (again, at THIS point) was connect the dots. To connect the dots, we need to analyze the elements of the accusation:
1) My wife and I were instructed to disallow Kylee from sitting on his lap.
2) This was a phone call.
3) The accusation against Kylee was promiscuity.
4) The accusation included the name of another allegedly promiscuous girl to qualify their claim of Kylee’s promiscuity.
5) Because of the age of this other girl, it meant that there was another episode of “6-year-old-girl promiscuity” with him—dating back to the mid-to-late 1950s.

Without the cooperation of my ex-wife, all I had was a single element of Elder Mickelsen’s accusation: Not allowing Kylee to sit on his lap, supported by the following reasoning:

I actually did sit my daughter down and instruct her that she could no longer sit on his lap. (And, we instructed her older brothers not to do so either—the children remember this.)

Had I made this up, then wouldn’t this General Authority have questioned me: “Hey, why is Kylee avoiding me, as she doesn’t sit on my lap anymore?

On the outside chance that Jean was disturbed enough to make up this story on her own, then the General Authority would again step up and question why his 6-year old daughter is avoiding him; or,

As a “caring, loving, shepherd-of-the-fold LDS General Authority”, why didn’t he EVER follow up with us concerning her alleged “promiscuity”; such as, How is Kylee doing? Have you considered getting her some professional help for this? Are you keeping an eye on her so that she isn’t doing this with other men?

Unless Elder Mickelsen can provide some form of evidence that he was concerned about the welfare of this six-year old with abnormal promiscuous patters, then we are left to assume that this six-year old was “healed miraculously” simply by the abrupt “not sitting on grandpa’s lap anymore”.
Throughout the divorce court, this was difficult to prove (either to the courts; and, Elder Mickelsen’s ecclesiast superiors [the Apostles] ignored my letters. [Letters to be included in the ensuing Releases.]

In the initial stages of the divorce court in 2006/2007 (and throughout numerous emails—also on file if requested), Jean denied anything and
everything about this phone call from her parents.

In January 2008, I was driving Kylee home after child visitation when she stated, “Dad, do you remember when you told me that I could not sit on grandpa’s lap? I know why.” I immediately pulled the car over (on 800 East in Orem, UT next to the soccer fields and the cemetery), and she began telling me her story. (The details of this will be included in ensuing Evidence Releases)

What was important is that we had the first element of the accusation: namely that I was instructed by someone to tell my daughter that she could no longer sit on his lap.

Through 2008 and 2009, Kylee’s mother would continue to protect her father at her daughter’s expense, just as she does in the attached exhibit. The level to which Kylee was ostracized from both sides of our extended families was enormous; the current relationships in the family are evidence of the burden that all three children have had to bear.

A critical breakthrough in solidifying the other critical elements of Elder Mickelsen’s accusation didn’t come until the Fall of 2009, after our oldest son, McKay, turned 18. At that point, he wanted to know what happened in the divorce case, because his mother continued flip-flopping on her statements to him. After reading the absurdities of the accusation (mainly produced at the Elder Richard G. Scott meeting with the family in Idaho), McKay took a recorder over to his mother’s apartment, placed the recorder on the table and not only demanded answers, but wanted them on the recording.

The attached certified transcript of that recording is of that meeting. And, because the transcript is one dimensional, I will provide the following commentary (confirmed and edited by McKay himself) to explain what is happening.

Lastly, I am including the first half of the transcript (page 1 through page 22), with the certified signature page on the end. Pages 23 through the end (Page 46) will be included in the next release. I am separating them because the last half of this conversation include issues that will be addressed then. In the next release, I will provide the document in its entirety.

Transcript Explanation/Commentary:
Q = McKay. He has brought the recorder to overtly record this conversation so that his mother cannot keep changing her story.
A = Jean Mickelsen Berger, McKay’s mother.
Page 14 Line 2: They originally begin the conversation at the kitchen table, but then Jean appears to realize she said something about her father that she shouldn’t have, and she grabs the recorder off the table and begins to run into her bedroom. The struggle for the recorder is very audible.
Page 15 Line 25: The struggle is calming, and they agree to sit back down to the table and continue recording.
Page 18 Line 21 through Page 19 Line 4: Both Elder Mickelsen and his daughter Jean Mickelsen Berger claim that I levied accusations against Elder Mickelsen of molesting his daughters and nieces: These two now have the venue to step up and share those “accusations”, because they do not exist. This was a courtroom ploy to muddy the waters—they never did provide evidences of such an accusation; and for the record, I never made such accusations.
Page 19 Line 5: The name of the second victim Darla Adams enters the conversation.
Page 20 Line 1-7: Jean confirms the accusation-element of Darla Adams, and of her promiscuity.
Page 20 Line 9 – 12: Jean likens “promiscuous Darla”, along with her high school pregnancy to our daughter Kylee, to again qualify her promiscuity (reiterating the words of her mother, Jeanine Mickelsen). The promiscuity element of the allegation is now confirmed. Moreover, Jean now infers that her little sister Janet was the same way, catapulting her into the promiscuity mud pit.
Page 22 Line 16: The promiscuity element is restated again.
Page 22 Line 16 – 25: It is confirmed by Jean Mickelsen Karren, the woman that claimed that I had fabricated all of this through the court proceedings; through the law enforcement proceedings; through the psychiatrist and psychologist proceedings, that I (Ron Karren) had fabricated all of this: The telephone-call element is confirmed. The fact that the call was from her parents (plural) is confirmed. And, lastly that our daughter was five or six when the accusation was made: ALL CONFIRMED.

(See Exhibit B)

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.
Next Release on Thursday February 25th, 2016.

Previous Entry: 01 Introduction

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profi ... lds-church

[_15shameless]

This could become really interesting as more information is released.
Assuming Karren has all the facts and evidence available, his children etc., I am certain a good investigative national newspaper could be interested as and if it develops.
There are excellent publications in the UK with US editions, which are renowned for their thoroughness, attention to detail, hard hitting investigative and presentational techniques. I assume there is similar among the US media.
Sexual abuse at the highest levels of ecclesiastical office in the Mormon Church, could be of great public interest, and not just in the US.
Sexual abuse and associated suppression amongst religious leaders is still big news and is regularly hitting the headlines.
The possibility of this malaise existing amongst the hierarchy of a secretive multi billion dollar church, with a clandestine element and which enjoys zero public accountability, would, I think, attract a great deal of public interest and add an extra dimension to the story.
It will be intriguing to see how it progresses and if their will be a reaction, if any, from the other side.

[_Mary]

Exhibit B is worth the read. It substantiates most of Ron's claims. Wow.

[_Starbuck]

Still waiting for an explanation of what "promiscuous activity" is. Hopefully it will be explained. Just have to wait and see.

[_Chap]

Still waiting for an explanation of what "promiscuous activity" is. Hopefully it will be explained. Just have to wait and see.

Wouldn't that really be a question for Mickelson to answer? The claim is simply that he said that these two little girls had acted in a 'promiscuous' way.

If the evidence of the wife's alleged recorded testimony that he did use that word is believed, then absent some explanation from Mickelson, one could hardly do other than interpret the word in its normal sense as applied to human beings, that is, having frequent casual sexual relations.

But this is so bizarre as applied to such young girls that one wonders whether a person like Mickelson might have used 'promiscuous' because he did not want to make a more specific allegation that might have prompted an angry denial from the mother, such as 'She felt me in a sexual way'. And perhaps Mickelson does not have a very large and well understood vocabulary when talking about such things in any case.

[_I have a question]

Still waiting for an explanation of what "promiscuous activity" is. Hopefully it will be explained. Just have to wait and see.

Wouldn't that really be a question for Mickelson to answer? The claim is simply that he said that these two little girls had acted in a 'promiscuous' way.

If the evidence of the wife's alleged recorded testimony that he did use that word is believed, then absent some explanation from Mickelson, one could hardly do other than interpret the word in its normal sense as applied to human beings, that is, having frequent casual sexual relations.

But this is so bizarre as applied to such young girls that one wonders whether a person like Mickelson might have used 'promiscuous' because he did not want to make a more specific allegation that might have prompted an angry denial from the mother, such as 'She felt me in a sexual way'. And perhaps Mickelson does not have a very large and well understood vocabulary when talking about such things in any case.

The issue isn't the girls action, whatever they might have been.
It's that grandpa allowed himself to become aroused from it, which is all about his thought processes and his desires rather than the girls behavior.

[_sock puppet]

Still waiting for an explanation of what "promiscuous activity" is. Hopefully it will be explained. Just have to wait and see.

It would indeed be interesting. Whatever Mickelsen might be defining it as, it seems quite extraordinary that a grandfather would label whatever two of his 6 year old granddaughters were doing while sitting on his lap with their clothes on as "promiscuous activity". He must have quite the sexually furtive imagination. Best not to shake hands with him.

[_Starbuck]

Wouldn't that really be a question for Mickelson to answer? The claim is simply that he said that these two little girls had acted in a 'promiscuous' way.

The issue isn't the girls action, whatever they might have been.
It's that grandpa allowed himself to become aroused from it, which is all about his thought processes and his desires rather than the girls behavior.

I am pretty sure we will never get Mickelson's side of this. There is a phone interview between a detective and Mickelson and the entire accusation appears to be jokingly brushed off.

The second release from Kerran States that his ex wife denied the phone call from ever happening. The transcript of his son talking to his ex looks like it is shedding some light on this and might show that the phone call did actually happen. I say might because Kerran left us hanging and cut the transcript off right when talk about the phone call was brought up.

Even if this does get to the level of charges being filed Mickelson never has to tell his side of things. So if Mickelson never talks, I have to rely on the testimony of a possible victim. Her story has not yet been disclosed. If her story is credible then more needs to be done to right her injustice. If her story is not credible then Kerran has some explaining to do on why he would exploit his daughter this way. Either way I feel for her. What a crappy deal to go through.

Since Kerran is doing the releases on his own time schedule I will just have to be patient to come to any conclusions.

[_Tobin]

This is why slander is illegal. I wish Mickelson would just sue Kerran for slander. With all Kerran web posts, I'm sure Mickelson could win.

[_I have a question]

This is why slander is illegal. I wish Mickelson would just sue Kerran for slander. With all Kerran web posts, I'm sure Mickelson could win.

Absolutely.

So why isn't he?