Mary wrote:"Though I was concerned about my daughter, at this point in time I didn’t perceive any sudden danger, and as long as we (my wife, my boys, and I) kept an eye on her, she would be safe. I wasn’t about to start digging into her brain and presenting possible sexual scenarios. Right or wrong, it’s what I felt best as a parent. And I wasn’t about to get the corrupt players of Utah’s Department of Child and Family Services involved (DCFS) involved. From my years of battling with them on Utah’s Capital Hill over the Parker Jensen case and the Dan Thaxton Jr. case, that is the last organization I was going to turn to at this point. Moreover, I was still the obedient Mormon boy who had pledged my life (literally) to the defend the Church; however, my doctrinal (and therefore spiritual) disposition was slowly deteriorating." From Starbuck's link..
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
One thing I noticed in the links Ron provided is that the affidavits seem to have been pretty much concocted on hearsay (against Ron). Nasty stuff, all organised by Elder Scott. Wow.
Another telling statement from J.....(Ron's ex wife) was that she didn't want a divorce. She didn't want one. Wow.
Last edited by Schreech on Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:24 am, edited 3 times 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
I have not read all of this new release yet. I am going to do this piece by piece as I can and have time and inclination. Any thoughts in this post, then, should be read as thoughts based only on what I have quoted here, not Karren's full release. I do this intentionally because I've seen a lot of ridiculously long releases full of small inaccuracies that attempt to eventually support a larger argument that might have merit if all the smaller conclusions were factual but that has moved so far away from reality through each smaller inaccuracy that I find I am reading a fabricated narrative.
Karren writes, "Upon being challenged by her son McKay in an overtly recorded conversation in 2009, Jean divulges every element of the accusation that her parents made against our daughter; and yet, Jean continues to call me and Kylee liars/fabricators In the recorded conversation between mother and son, McKay asks about grandpa rubbing Kylee’s inner thighs and getting erect. After Jeans “double-Absolute denials, she capitulates stating: “Why don’t you ask Grandpa”. (Exhibit 03 A, Page 13)."
I don't feel like he's handing me the information I need to believe him. He says that his wife "divulges every element" of the call (that I'm not convinced proves anything yet), but he doesn't quote any one of the "every element(s)" he says she divulged. If I want to know exactly what she admitted, I have to go back to Exhibit B to find it. He should be handing me that directly so I don't have to do his work for him. I would be happy to fact check to make sure what he quotes from the text is really in the text, but I don't feel like I should have to weed through the text to find out if it contains what he says it contains when he isn't even quoting it.
This bothers me because what he does quote doesn't seem like evidence against M or his ex-wife. He instead selects a quote to make his ex-wife look like a bad mom for getting her son involved in matters beyond what a child should be involved in. The quote he chooses to draw attention to is, "Why don't you go ask your grandpa?"
The quote he chooses is not evidence that mom is lying. It is evidence mom is under stress and is being asked questions aggressively. Her son's aggressive behavior evokes a distressed and self-protective reaction. Why, in fact, is her son approaching her so aggressively? The answer: Karren has gotten him so involved in matters beyond what children should be dealing with that he is at his mom's house with a tape recorder trying to gather evidence against her and his grandfather. In other words, Karren is making an argument that accuses his wife of doing exactly what he is doing in order to make her look like a bad mom.
Karren continues (notice how he tries to get his wife in trouble for doing what he, in reality, is doing), "The accusation came from Elder Mickelsen to his daughter Jean. Our son was not part of that conversation. Why is the mother suggesting that our son (who was not part of that conversation) get involved. Isn’t it the mother’s responsibility to go to her father (who made the accusation through her, against the daughter, and demand an explanation of what the daughter “was explaining to her”? (Exhibit 03 A Page 13:10-11)"
Um..... But, Karren, you got him involved.
"Instead, Jean is compartmentalizing the accusations of her father against our daughter—and now, for some reason, is inviting her son to approach her General Authority father about it."
Also, the fact that her father is a GA has nothing to do with this particular interaction. It's superfluous information because the fact that a son might approach a grandfather has nothing to do with any titles that grandfather might carry. Their son-grandfather relationship trumps. I assume Karren adds it, then, to affect the emotions of his audience.
Simply stated, from my perspective, the reason the mother really asks the son to go to his grandfather is that she is under stress because her son is aggressively approaching her at his father's request and that she has asked the son to stop but the son refuses. That's what I remember from Exhibit B.
Some people people do not have the neurological capacity to understand others' intentions or emotional responses or to comprehend that they are accusing other people of doing exactly what they themselves are, in fact, doing. Other people intentionnally direct attention away from their own wrongs and blame others. I have no information about Karren's capacity to comprehend how he is affecting the social situation. (People with diminished capacity to understand how they affect the social situation and who commonly accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing and miscomprehend others' intentions qualify for specific mental health diagnoses and tend not to be aware of their mistakes in reasoning.)
There seems to have been a good amount of mudslinging on both sides commensurate with a nasty divorce.
I think one of the big and central issues is the daughter. If she had been sexually assaulted by grandad and her mother refuses to believe it then that would cause a lot of tension.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Mary wrote:There seems to have been a good amount of mudslinging on both sides commensurate with a nasty divorce.
I think one of the big and central issues is the daughter. If she had been sexually assaulted by grandad and her mother refuses to believe it then that would cause a lot of tension.
Wether or not she was sexually assaulted by her Grandpa (to be determined), Grandpa got an erection based on what he was thinking about his six year old Granddaughter and for which he laid the blame on her. That, in and of itself, is exceptionally disturbing behavior from an adult.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Mary wrote:Just a couple points to add to that, Rosebud.
The son was involved by the mother and Elder Scott. He was present at the meeting to sign affidavits against the character of the father.
The son did not have access to the court documents which he was only able to see after he was 18.
Thanks Mary. I am going to keep on reading as I get time. I haven't seen the Elder Scott thing yet. I am going to take this piece by piece as one problem I see often see is mis-painted pieces being set together to create a picture that could be accurate if each puzzle piece had been painted accurately but that, because of the inaccuracies of the pieces, doesn't represent a factual representation of what happened.
Do you know if he has put together a timeline? What event happened when and in what order? I am assuming the Exhibit B recording was made before the son was 18. If it wasn't, I suppose the son could be deemed guilty of harassment for treating his mother that way.... although I don't really know how age plays into those things. I feel very sad for this family. This is so messed up.
This latest update is interesting. I think he is a busy man and actually doesn't want the limelight. I take him at his word. He had produced the divorce reasoning from his wife. (exhibit 3c) It is pretty damning stuff in terms of his character. Brave man to do it. Claims of sex abuse were seemingly flying everywhere. What a mess.
Hi Mary. I'm away at a board gaming weekend. I'll take a look at the new stuff when I get home.
“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
"In this case, however, my daughter did not make the accusation: The perpetrator and the perpetrator’s wife did. In what should be a landmark case against a Christian Ecclesiast (in this case a Mormon General Authority), both the perpetrator and the victim agree: Specifically, there was promiscuous activing going on between them. He claims she was “way to physical with him and she has the same promiscuous patterns as Darla Adams”; while she details his fingers in her crotch and his ever present erection on, around, and in her butt crack from age six, from the time stopped sitting on his lap, back to her earliest memories—as the transcript will show.
"In further analysis: There is a segment of society out there (including the SLCPD Detective Cathrine Schoney) who believe that I actually fabricated this. The evidence proves differently. The 65-year old male accused the 6-year old child of being promiscuously physical with him. The grandmother (Jeanine Mickelsen) steps up to co-accuse the child. What exactly did Jeanine Mickelsen experience of her granddaughter’s alleged promiscuity, that qualifies her as the co-accuser? Despite Kylee’s mother (Jean) knowing of these accusations against her daughter by her parents, she steps forward to call her daughter a liar. (Exhibit 03 A Page 12:6-11) McKay openly calls out his mother for lying. (Exhibit 03 A Page 15:11-23). The mother (Jean Mickelsen Berger) steps up in defense of her General Authority father, claiming that the fingerings and erections “Absolutely did not happen”. Unless she had placed her hand between the butt of her daughter and grandpa’s crotch, she cannot defend him in such absolute terms. However, she contradicts this absolutism with “I think maybe – why don’t you ask grandpa.”
"Therefore, it both simply and necessarily comes down to comparing Mickelsen’s explanation of what he claims was “Kylee’s promiscuity” and Kylee’s explanation of what his promiscuity was. They both agree to “promiscuous activity” between them. Only Kylee has come forward; he sits in silence.
"In Mickelsen’s accusation, he adheres the label “promiscuous patterns” to Kylee in order to support his claim of “She has been way too physical with me”. Patterns take time. How much time of her being “way too physical with him” did it take for him to come up with “promiscuous PATTERNS”. Kylee states she remembers it stopping after I instructed her she could no longer sit on his lap; but the fingering of her crotch and the erection grinding in her butt started years earlier “back to her earliest memories”, the most vivid was at swimming lessons at his Salt Lake condo when she was in her bathing suit. Therefore (and additionally) they are both in agreement that this promiscuous activity occurred over a period of time."
_______
Karren is trying to use logic to make up for the evidence he lacks. (This is very Mormon, by the way.... Mormonism has a deceptively logical doctrine that lacks empirical evidence.)
Again, even if the phone call did happen in the manner Karren suggests, someone else may have presexualized the child. No further evidence has been given.
I addressed his assumptions about the meaning of "Why don't you go ask Grandpa?" in my previous post. He claims here that statement is evidence his wife contradicted herself. I disagree. It was the statement of a woman in distress.
The word "patterns" could have also referred to the way a presexualized child may have acted over time. That argument does not bolster his position.
I've addressed the issues with culture and the use of the word "promiscuity" in previous posts. Nothing new.
I give the most credence to the daughter's claims. Victims need to be believed in order to heal and I'm convinced she is a real victim because there doesn't seem to be any argument about her presexualized actions. I will not yet also choose to believe Mikelsen was the nevessarily the perpetrator. Right now I don't have enough evidence and I think it is very important to be careful about who one claims is sexually abusing children. I have seen too many perpetrators accuse other people of being perpetrators. Karren could be the perpetrator just as easily as Mikelsen. As could many other people. That's one reason why, as Karren points out, a certain level of evidence must be produced to accuse someone of this kind of crime and win in a court of law. Karren doesn't have that level of evidence, so he is taking advantage of this media moment to present his case to the public. Members of the public are vulnerable to easy deception. They can also be used to help give ideas power.
Also, victims can be deceived into making accusations that aren't accurate even though the victims believe they are accurate. That does not mean that abuse did not happen or the victim shouldn't be believed or that the victim is lying. It does mean that all of the details that come from the victim may not be completely accurate and even that the victim may be stating inaccuracies someone else wants to have stated and might even believe they are true. A perpetrator's hold over a victim can be very extensive.
I would like to see Mormon abuse victims speak together publicly about the real problem, but I do not think Karren is the person they should follow towards this goal. I hope someone who has more experience and who can think more clearly will step up and lead this charge. It needs to happen.