Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Mary]

Ok. My interest in this case is having had two LDS friends who were asked to perform sex acts on their fathers and where nothing was done. Both were reported as historic cases. One when my friend went on her mission and another much later post mission. This is commensurate with the church's policy that child sex abuse *may* incur a disciplinary council but apostasy and gay marriage *will* incur a council. So we know from the get go that the priorities are seriously **cked up. That should set any alarm bells going right there, and I don't know why the policy isn't being challenged given the horror and effect of sex abuse on children.

As I see it, the divorce was a direct result of this phone call. The wife praises her husband in the conversation in exhibit B. Everyone loved him in the family - so something catastrophic went on. (If I am wrong someone correct).

Ron doesn't want the church destroyed nor anyone to resign their membership over this (he made that very clear to me by private message).

At some point he gets custody of the children and his claims his child was abused by Micklesen are thrown out of court. Nothing unusual about that and shouldn't be taken to imply innocence or guilt. Just not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Years later, the daughter remembers, Ron stops the car. Listens. Makes a video which no one watches. Until now.

He's angry, shooting from the hip. No Law firm wants to take itmon, so he is going to the court of public opinion.

Spotlight is in the media news at the moment and this has probably provided the springboard.

[_Rosebud]

Ok. My interest in this case is having had two LDS friends who were asked to perform sex acts on their fathers and where nothing was done. Both were reported as historic cases. One when my friend went on her mission and another much later post mission. This is commensurate with the church's policy that child sex abuse *may* incur a disciplinary council but apostasy and gay marriage *will* incur a council. So we know from the get go that the priorities are seriously **cked up. That should set any alarm bells going right there, and I don't know why the policy isn't being challenged given the horror and effect of sex abuse on children.

As I see it, the divorce was a direct result of this phone call. The wife praises her husband in the conversation in exhibit B. Everyone loved him in the family - so something catastrophic went on. (If I am wrong someone correct).

Ron doesn't want the church destroyed nor anyone to resign their membership over this (he made that very clear to me by private message).

At some point he gets custody of the children and his claims his child was abused by Micklesen are thrown out of court. Nothing unusual about that and shouldn't be taken to imply innocence or guilt. Just not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Years later, the daughter remembers, Ron stops the car. Listens. Makes a video which no one watches. Until now.

He's angry, shooting from the hip. No Law firm wants to take itmon, so he is going to the court of public opinion.

Spotlight is in the media news at the moment and this has probably provided the springboard.

I don't think we can make assumptions about causes of divorce without information from both parties. His ex-wife filed. Maybe she wanted the divorce more than Karren did. We don't know.

I would assume no law firm will take it on because the recovered memories are of little value after all the family fighting that has already gone on regarding the issue. That doesn't mean she's remembering incorrectly, she may not be. It does mean that she very well could be remembering incorrectly and might be falsely placing blame on her grandfather.

The fact that it's normal for young children to forget trauma is very useful to predators. It makes it easy for them to get away with abuse. It also incentivizes them to be strange and cruel. I point this out because adults recover memories of very strange things and are often told that what they remember is too strange to have actually happened. Well, thinking about this from the perspective of a predator who doesn't want to get caught, one way to ensure a child won't ever be believed is to be abusive in a way that is fairly unbelievable.

"I'd believe you, little Johnny (or adult John who is remembering years later), if you told me your grandpa wes playing with your penis in the dark on a mountain, although that would be a weird place for him to do that, but I don't believe that Santa did that to you." In other words, if a perpetrator uses a costume and an unexpected setting, the perpetrator helps ensure that the victim won't be believed if the victim remembers.

[_Rosebud]

AmyJo, Tobin is abusive.

I'm a big fan of the ignore feature. You shouldn't have to deal with that. Cutting abusive people out of your life is a mature decision even though just about every abusive person I've run into will cry foul and play victim when they're cut off. But oh well, not your problem. Tobin does not seem to be well and from where I sit, his problems seem to be causing you a lot of stress that you shouldn't have to be dealing with. I could be wrong. This is just my take.

[_Rosebud]

It's a shame that the parents didn't take the child to be evaluated at the time of the phone call. I think you could fairly place some blame on the LDS church for that.

Agreed. They're lost in the worry and the shame of the idea of "promiscuity." Culture is a likely or maybe even an obvious factor in that worry and shame. It's the culture of Mormonism that will likely make this publicity even harder on the girls, too.

Another possibility is that the parents didn't take the child for help because they weren't invested in her healing. Some parents don't want their children to heal. Sexually abusive parents are invested in their children not healing and not remembering or at least not remembering correctly.

Some kids have it really rough.

[_Mary]

Rosebud, very much appreciate your comments in this thread.

Ron details a rather unusual event reported to him by his son, whereby (radio show with Tyson KH) Scott? gets the family together to produce damming affidavits on Ron's character. Micklesen funds the divorce on behalf of his daughter.

Right now I am also giving the father, Ron, the benefit of the doubt. He does appear to want justice for his daughter. I cannot imagine how it must feel as a parent
to know this went on and to not be able to bring the perpetrator to justice as well as having a daughter's name besmirched. I would be angry. Very angry.

Ron's daughter appears to have raised the subject of abuse years after the fact. Ron's account of the time, whereby he recalls exactly what he was doing and where he was and where he pulled over, in psychological terms is commensurate with a traumatic and significant event.

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of Diana's death. That kind of thing.

Edit: apologise for any spelling/etc errors.. am on a phone. Difficult to type.

[_AmyJo]

AmyJo, Tobin is abusive.

I'm a big fan of the ignore feature. You shouldn't have to deal with that. Cutting abusive people out of your life is a mature decision even though just about every abusive person I've run into will cry foul and play victim when they're cut off. But oh well, not your problem. Tobin does not seem to be well and from where I sit, his problems seem to be causing you a lot of stress that you shouldn't have to be dealing with. I could be wrong. This is just my take.

That's probably where I lost track of Res Ispa's intentions. Seeing he was following Tobin's posts after others telling me Tobin is abusive and to ignore him. Everyone but Ipsa that is, who was having the same conversation almost that Tobin was, with Tobin himself.

That's why he looked like Tobin's shadow including after Tubs was relegated to Telestial with his outlandish remarks, there also Res Ipsa went to join Tobin w/ similar conversation without the same outlandish insults that landed Tobs in almost virtual cyber outer darkness. Which he went missing since if anyone has noticed. Guess challenging and disrespecting Dr. Shades was more than he bargained for after all the patience and hospitality he was given here he still didn't reciprocate.

So. For someone who's being the target of Toby's abuse, they both started to look very much like the same to me if you get my drift - even if they aren't. I can't tell the difference from here. Nor have I been here as long as some of you others to know who is who.

I do get a sense of who likes to push buttons harder than others, and play mind games. I've been unfairly accused of things by Ipsy that was uncalled for, so he still does not have my trust or respect whoever he says he is.

[_Rosebud]

Rosebud, very much appreciate your comments in this thread.

Ron details a rather unusual event reported to him by his son, whereby (radio show with Tyson KH) Scott? gets the family together to produce damming affidavits on Ron's character. Micklesen funds the divorce on behalf of his daughter.

Right now I am also giving the father, Ron, the benefit of the doubt. He does appear to want justice for his daughter. I cannot imagine how it must feel as a parent
to know this went on and to not be able to bring the perpetrator to justice as well as having a daughter's name besmirched. I would be angry. Very angry.

Ron's daughter appears to have raised the subject of abuse years after the fact. Ron's account of the time, whereby he recalls exactly what he was doing and where he was and where he pulled over, in psychological terms is commensurate with a traumatic and significant event.

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of Diana's death. That kind of thing.

Edit: apologise for any spelling/etc errors.. am on a phone. Difficult to type.

I am actually not following what Karren says closely because I'm very disconnected from Mormonism and have actually been banned from the main Mormon Facebook discussion groups. (Those bannings eventually helped me transition away from the Mormon obsession more effectively -- although not as immediately as some had hoped.)

So, what I'm saying, too, is that I just don't know and am speaking only in possibilities because for me what is important is not this particular case, but that good people start learning more about how perpetrators operate because good people beginning to understand will help good people protect children more effectively. It's a scary situation we've got when perpetrators are putting on costumes and doing weird things intentionally causing children to forget and not report and when good people don't believe victims because the victim stories are too outlandish to be believable. We have very little children dealing with incredibly difficult horrors on their own and adults who don't understand what is going on and therefore don't help. At this point I don't really give a damn about anything but the victims. I don't care about Karren, Mikelsen, Scott or the church and I'm even caring less and less about the Mormon people. The events of the last 5 years lost me my family (but not my kids -- I managed to escape with them), my believing Mormon community and then, at the design of some, the progressive Mormon community. To survive, I'm learning the ropes of the never-Mo world.

So, since I'm only speaking in possibilities, my statements hopefully don't damn either party. I don't know much of anything about this case. I only know what I've seen in other cases and that information gives me a different perspective when I look at this case. I am not familiar with the Scott issue yet because I don't have any information about it. (I may have missed that somewhere in this thread. Sometimes I skim.)

As for the Mikelsen funding the divorce thing, I don't know many women who like to have to go to their dads for financial help in a time of crisis with their husbands. I don't know if Karren was sole breadwinner, but these people are Mormon, so he probably was. If so, HE should have funded the divorce. The fact that he didn't means he possibly refused and was attempting to force his wife to stay married to him against her will. That is actually a tactic used by abusive men, not good husbands trying their hardest and then being willing to act in the best interests of the family as a whole when the marriage fails. To me, the fact that Mikeksen funded the divorce is evidence against Karren, not Mikelsen.

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok. My interest in this case is having had two LDS friends who were asked to perform sex acts on their fathers and where nothing was done. Both were reported as historic cases. One when my friend went on her mission and another much later post mission. This is commensurate with the church's policy that child sex abuse *may* incur a disciplinary council but apostasy and gay marriage *will* incur a council. So we know from the get go that the priorities are seriously **cked up. That should set any alarm bells going right there, and I don't know why the policy isn't being challenged given the horror and effect of sex abuse on children.

As I see it, the divorce was a direct result of this phone call. The wife praises her husband in the conversation in exhibit B. Everyone loved him in the family - so something catastrophic went on. (If I am wrong someone correct).

Ron doesn't want the church destroyed nor anyone to resign their membership over this (he made that very clear to me by private message).

At some point he gets custody of the children and his claims his child was abused by Micklesen are thrown out of court. Nothing unusual about that and shouldn't be taken to imply innocence or guilt. Just not enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Years later, the daughter remembers, Ron stops the car. Listens. Makes a video which no one watches. Until now.

He's angry, shooting from the hip. No Law firm wants to take itmon, so he is going to the court of public opinion.

Spotlight is in the media news at the moment and this has probably provided the springboard.

Hi Mary,

I can't draw any conclusions about why Mrs. Karren filed for divorce. The phone call was four years before she filed. Likewise her comment about the family loving Ron in the recorded conversation. The conversation took place during a very contentious divorce, one in which the Commissioner had explicitly ordered the parties not to disparage each other in the presence of the children. And Mrs. Karren was very suspicious that the son was going to give the recording to his father. So she simply may have been careful.

Each of us are going to construct a story that will put all the facts we learn together in a way that makes sense to us. At this point, many stories could explain these facts to me. Once might be that Karren is a good manipulator. In my experience, these are hard to spot based on direct contact with them. They can appear completely sincere or charming in person. Their manipulative nature comes out over time. They can even be emotionally abusive. It's perfectly possible that Mrs. Karen's family "loved him" but that he was emotionally abusive to her when others weren't around. I'm not saying that this is the true story. But it's a possible story consistent with the facts we have.

I also put more weight on the divorce action than you do. I do that because Ron did make his accusation in that court action, and based on what he said it was considered by law enforcement and psychiatrists. They did not accept his claims. I think that is meaningful because they could gather information from all parties, including interviewing the girl herself. We, on the other hand, have only Ron's story and the information and evidence he chooses to give us.

I also don't agree with your observations on the nature of memory. Our understanding of memory is that every time we recall an event from the past, we rewrite it. Iron has clearly thought about that conversation with his daughter a great deal. Each time he thinks about it, he rewrites it. Ironically, those vivid memories of past trauma that seem so clear to us now are the most likely kind of memories to be inaccurate. That sucks, but we can't help the way our brains work.

This is a hard case because, just as in the case of your friends, there is child abuse that goes on in LDS families and congregations and it has been covered up and/or handled terribly. There is a lawyer in my state who has aggressively and successfully sued the LDS church and its clergy in child abuse cases. And I don't live in the Morridor. So I believe it is a real problem and should be taken very seriously. At the same time, I think taking the problem seriously includes making sure we aren't replicating the wrongs done in the McMartin pre-school, the Wenatchee sex ring, and other past cases.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rosebud, very much appreciate your comments in this thread.

Ron details a rather unusual event reported to him by his son, whereby (radio show with Tyson KH) Scott? gets the family together to produce damming affidavits on Ron's character. Micklesen funds the divorce on behalf of his daughter.

Right now I am also giving the father, Ron, the benefit of the doubt. He does appear to want justice for his daughter. I cannot imagine how it must feel as a parent
to know this went on and to not be able to bring the perpetrator to justice as well as having a daughter's name besmirched. I would be angry. Very angry.

Ron's daughter appears to have raised the subject of abuse years after the fact. Ron's account of the time, whereby he recalls exactly what he was doing and where he was and where he pulled over, in psychological terms is commensurate with a traumatic and significant event.

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of Diana's death. That kind of thing.

Edit: apologise for any spelling/etc errors.. am on a phone. Difficult to type.

I am actually not following what Karren says closely because I'm very disconnected from Mormonism and have actually been banned from the main Mormon Facebook discussion groups. (Those bannings eventually helped me transition away from the Mormon obsession more effectively -- although not as immediately as some had hoped.)

So, what I'm saying, too, is that I just don't know and am speaking only in possibilities because for me what is important is not this particular case, but that good people start learning more about how perpetrators operate because good people beginning to understand will help good people protect children more effectively. It's a scary situation we've got when perpetrators are putting on costumes and doing weird things intentionally causing children to forget and not report and when good people don't believe victims because the victim stories are too outlandish to be believable. We have very little children dealing with incredibly difficult horrors on their own and adults who don't understand what is going on and therefore don't help. At this point I don't really give a damn about anything but the victims. I don't care about Karren, Mikelsen, Scott or the church and I'm even caring less and less about the Mormon people. The events of the last 5 years lost me my family (but not my kids -- I managed to escape with them), my believing Mormon community and then, at the design of some, the progressive Mormon community. To survive, I'm learning the ropes of the never-Mo world.

So, since I'm only speaking in possibilities, my statements hopefully don't damn either party. I don't know much of anything about this case. I only know what I've seen in other cases and that information gives me a different perspective when I look at this case. I am not familiar with the Scott issue yet because I don't have any information about it. (I may have missed that somewhere in this thread. Sometimes I skim.)

As for the Mikelsen funding the divorce thing, I don't know many women who like to have to go to their dads for financial help in a time of crisis with their husbands. I don't know if Karren was sole breadwinner, but these people are Mormon, so he probably was. If so, HE should have funded the divorce. The fact that he didn't means he possibly refused and was attempting to force his wife to stay married to him against her will. That is actually a tactic used by abusive men, not good husbands trying their hardest and then being willing to act in the best interests of the family as a whole when the marriage fails. To me, the fact that Mikeksen funded the divorce is evidence against Karren, not Mikelsen.

I don't know what to make of the divorce funding. My ex and I both worked. I earned more, so I think I paid a share of her fees. But I also think her folks paid for her share. I think they did it to show support for her and to help her through a rough time. I paid mine out of my pocket. But my family did give me a place to live for a couple of months. Families help out where they can. So I don't really see the funding of the divorce as evidence either way.

[_Lemmie]

There is a lawyer in my state who has aggressively and successfully sued the LDS church and its clergy in child abuse cases. And I don't live in the Morridor.

Interesting. Just to make sure I understand terminology, when you say successfully sued does that mean a court case with public records, or would it also include settling out of court? I ask because it would be interesting to look at public court records.