Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Chap]

She made a CPS referral. The referral came back "unsubstantiated."

"Unsubstantiated" can be something of a weasel word under circumstances like these. It seems to be used by persons in authority who have had an allegation placed before them, and are not in a position to find any other evidence of the alleged event having taken place other than the statement by a viciim that it did take place. And if what is alleged to have happened (grandfather gaining sexual arousal) by having a six-year-old girl on his lap) did actually take place, there is of course no way at all that there could be any evidence that the police could have found after the event, is there?

Yet the statement that an allegation was "unsubstantiated" is widely taken as suggesting that the investigating authority have reason for thinking that the allegation is false or imaginary.

When the daughter said that the authorities hadn't believed her, she explained that it wasn't that they didn't believe her -- that it only meant they didn't consider what happened to be sexual abuse.

Excuse me? Apart from the child's statement - basically that her grandfather not infrequently took her on his lap and had erections - how did they have any grounds at all for judging "what happened"? And would that not be 'sexual abuse" in Utah?

[_AmyJo]

She made a CPS referral. The referral came back "unsubstantiated."

"Unsubstantiated" can be something of a weasel word under circumstances like these. It seems to be used by persons in authority who have had an allegation placed before them, and are not in a position to find any other evidence of the alleged event having taken place other than the statement by a viciim that it did take place. And if what is alleged to have happened (grandfather gaining sexual arousal) by having a six-year-old girl on his lap) did actually take place, there is of course no way at all that there could be any evidence that the police could have found after the event, is there?

Yet the statement that an allegation was "unsubstantiated" is widely taken as suggesting that the investigating authority have reason for thinking that the allegation is false or imaginary.

When the daughter said that the authorities hadn't believed her, she explained that it wasn't that they didn't believe her -- that it only meant they didn't consider what happened to be sexual abuse.

Excuse me? Apart from the child's statement - basically that her grandfather not infrequently took her on his lap and had erections - how did they have any grounds at all for judging "what happened"? And would that not be 'sexual abuse" in Utah?

Only in Utah would something like this not be considered sexual abuse, especially when it's by a GA. I had a LDS Sunday School teacher growing up in the morg who taught that incest is biblical as LDS doctrine. The church may not make it an official stance, but unofficially it's as legitimate as polygamy is.

A little incest here, a little there. When it's higher up the ladder just more reason to turn a blind eye instead of dealing with it as the pedophilia and child molestation that it is.

[_Res Ipsa]

She made a CPS referral. The referral came back "unsubstantiated."

"Unsubstantiated" can be something of a weasel word under circumstances like these. It seems to be used by persons in authority who have had an allegation placed before them, and are not in a position to find any other evidence of the alleged event having taken place other than the statement by a viciim that it did take place. And if what is alleged to have happened (grandfather gaining sexual arousal) by having a six-year-old girl on his lap) did actually take place, there is of course no way at all that there could be any evidence that the police could have found after the event, is there?

Yet the statement that an allegation was "unsubstantiated" is widely taken as suggesting that the investigating authority have reason for thinking that the allegation is false or imaginary. Which is not the case.

When the daughter said that the authorities hadn't believed her, she explained that it wasn't that they didn't believe her -- that it only meant they didn't consider what happened to be sexual abuse.

Excuse me? Apart from the child's statement - basically that her grandfather not infrequently took her on his lap and had erections - how did they have any grounds at all for judging "what happened"? And would that not be 'sexual abuse" in Utah?

Chap, I don't know what exactly your beef is here. I'm responding to Mary's statement that the therapist acted unprofessionally. I don't think she did. I think she was appropriately supportive of the girl, who was her client.

I've asked you several times if you've read the materials. You haven't answered. Have you read them?

I think it's pretty apparent that Ron's reaction to the "unsubstantiated" finding was to keep telling his daughter that she had been sexually abused and that the police were saying they didn't believe her. That's a terrible thing to do to the kid -- tell her that the police think she's lying or making things up. The therapist was being supportive of her -- helping her understand that the finding didn't invalidate what she remembered.

I have no idea what CPS did as an investigation. I'm sure Ron will tell us his version in detail.

[_Res Ipsa]

Only in Utah would something like this not be considered sexual abuse, especially when it's by a GA. I had a LDS Sunday School teacher growing up in the morg who taught that incest is biblical as LDS doctrine. The church may not make it an official stance, but unofficially it's as legitimate as polygamy is.

A little incest here, a little there. When it's higher up the ladder just more reason to turn a blind eye instead of dealing with it as the pedophilia and child molestation that it is.

We know that CPS did an investigation. We don't know what the daughter told the investigators. We don't know what Mickelson told the investigators. I'm simply disagreeing with Mary's statement that the kids' therapist acted inappropriately.

[_Chap]

Chap, I don't know what exactly your beef is here.

I don't know quite what you mean by a 'beef' (that sounds like a word whose function is mainly rhetorical rather than having any factual reference) - I think, however, that my comment was quite clear in itself.

I was commenting on the use of the word 'unsubstantiated' by the CPS in reference to the allegations of sexual abuse made against the grandfather. I was also commenting on the fact that the therapist is reported as having said to the girl that the authorities 'didn't consider what happened to be sexual abuse'.

Once again, you exhibit a degree of confidence in interpreting the motivations and evaluating the moral status of the actions of all the parties in this affair that I find a little puzzling.

Only in Utah would something like this not be considered sexual abuse, especially when it's by a GA. I had a LDS Sunday School teacher growing up in the morg who taught that incest is biblical as LDS doctrine. The church may not make it an official stance, but unofficially it's as legitimate as polygamy is.

A little incest here, a little there. When it's higher up the ladder just more reason to turn a blind eye instead of dealing with it as the pedophilia and child molestation that it is.

Well, the uncritical respect for GAs demanded by the CoJCoLDS would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child. I don't say that the grandfather did abuse his grand-daughter, but even if he did one would expect some pretty strong denials to be made, and a strong campaign to be mounted against anybody making such allegations.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'll take your third failure to answer a simple and direct question as meaning that you haven't read the materials.

Reread your last paragraph. Then reread your penultimate paragraph. Pot meet kettle...

[_Mary]

Was the psychologist trained in dealing with victims of sexual abuse? Her behaviour indicates to me that she was not.

The daughter's report to her father was more detailed than to the psychologist. That factor confirms research that children will be more open with people they trust and know. That works in Ron's favour.

This article makes for an interesting read.
http://www.secasa.com.au/pages/is-the-c ... the-truth/

[_Chap]

I'll take your third failure to answer a simple and direct question as meaning that you haven't read the materials.

Will you? On the other hand it may simply mean that I decline to act as if I was a witness you were examining in court in order to qualify to comment on this thread. You are of course welcome to point to any inaccuracies in what I write.

Reread your last paragraph. Then reread your penultimate paragraph. Pot meet kettle...

... the uncritical respect for GAs demanded by the CoJCoLDS would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child. I don't say that the grandfather did abuse his grand-daughter, but even if he did one would expect some pretty strong denials to be made, and a strong campaign to be mounted against anybody making such allegations.

If you don't think my description of the respect shown to GAs by Utah Mormons is broadly correct, and that my suggestion of its likely consequences is well based, then I think your experience must have been very different from that of most other people on this board who have referred to this aspect of Mormon culture in the years I have been reading it. You really think that child abuse allegations against a GA would be treated like child abuse allegations against any old guy? You can't be serious. But maybe you are.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'll take your third failure to answer a simple and direct question as meaning that you haven't read the materials.

Will you? On the other hand it may simply mean that I decline to act as if I was a witness you were examining in court in order to qualify to comment on this thread. You are of course welcome to point to any inaccuracies in what I write.

Reread your last paragraph. Then reread your penultimate paragraph. Pot meet kettle...

... the uncritical respect for GAs demanded by the CoJCoLDS would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child. I don't say that the grandfather did abuse his grand-daughter, but even if he did one would expect some pretty strong denials to be made, and a strong campaign to be mounted against anybody making such allegations.

If you don't think my description of the respect shown to GAs by Utah Mormons is broadly correct, and that my suggestion of its likely consequences is well based, then I think your experience must have been very different from that of most other people on this board who have referred to this aspect of Mormon culture in the years I have been reading it. You really think that child abuse allegations against a GA would be treated like child abuse allegations against any old guy? You can't be serious. But maybe you are.

Play silly little games if you like, Chap. I asked you if you had read the materials because, if you had, then I would refer you to the parts of them that give rise to my opinions. If you're not willing to put in the time in to read them, then that would seem to me to be a waste of time. Frankly, it seems rude to me for you to jump in here every couple of pages to chide me for having and expressing an opinion and not to answer a simple and direct question like "have you read the materials?"

You seem to have missed the point. You didn't make a statement just about "Utah Mormons." You stated a judgment about everyone in the state of Utah -- "would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child." That's a helluva sweeping judgment about the motivations and moral status of a whole lot of people you know nothing about.

My point is, we're all expressing opinions on what has gone on here, including motivations. Hell, a couple of posters from the gitgo pronounced Mickelsen guilty of sexual abuse from the outset -- attributing all kinds of motivations and condemning them morally on little to no information. So, why do you seem to have some sort of problem with my posts? I don't get it.

[Guest]

The 'slow reveal' technique that Ron is using, coupled with his penchant for more words than substance, has caused me to lose interest. I'll check back in a month or two to see where this has got to.

He said at one point he plans to keep this up for months.

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist. I will never be a psychologist. I am doing research on this subject at the moment, however.

This is my assessment, for whatever it is or isn't worth:

This is high-functioning autism in an adult. It affects communication and social functioning. The tendency to ramble is part of the disorder. There is a deficiency in perspective taking skills making it difficult to understand what information the audience needs and and how to structure that information in a manner that the audience can easily comprehend.

There are also deficiencies in understanding others' emotions and action intentions. Many marriages with one partner having high-functioning autism fail (social interaction skills, communication skills and emotion and intention understanding skills are fairly critical to successful intimate relationships). Sometimes (often?) when the marriages fail, this is what the divorces look like. High-functioning autism makes standard negotiation difficult and negotiation skills are critical in successful divorces. The person with high-functioning autism is often sure that his/her perspective is the only valid perspective despite evidence presented to the contrary. The person with high-functioning autism has a hard time understanding his/her ex-spouse's and children's needs -- especially their emotional needs. High-functioning autism is associated with an inability to experience immediate compassion for others. Compassion has to be gained through conscious thought rather than immediate embodied simulations related to the mirror neuron system and the motor system.

Also, while the younger generation of people with the disorder were often diagnosed as children and are getting help, the older generation(s) have no idea they may have the disorder. They find themselves in failing relationships and, sometimes, well-paying and fairly niche jobs using their special interests and skills. Many older people with the disorder will adamantly deny that they have the disorder (if someone in their family has been lucky enough to get access to the information to figure out what is going on as HFA is fairly difficult to recognize in adults and many mental health professionals miss it) as adamantly as they will insist things like, "When my ex-wife said, 'Why don't you go ask your grandfather?' she was admitting guilt" when just about anybody with a functioning mirror neuron system and developed social interpretation skills knows that is simply false. Even so, in some situations -- especially stressful and emotional situations -- the person with high-functioning autism is fairly impossible to convince. They "know" what things mean and sometimes they will push their agendas relentlessly.

I wouldn't be surprised if this goes on for a very long time. There is very little stopping some people with the disorder. This is out of hand. The divorce was 10 years ago and he's still publicly shaming his ex.

I have a lot of compassion for people who have high-functioning autism. It is rough. It is probably very confusing to be inside their heads. At this point in my life, I also have a lot of compassion for their families. What a mess. This stuff happens over and over again. The courts are full of it and family law professionals are just in the beginning stages of figuring out that it's related to autism. Autism in adults is fairly un-understood. But what can courts do anyway? It's really the place of judges and guardian ad litems to try to help.

Also, autistic traits exist in the general population. Diagnosis happens once a certain threshold is reached. Diagnoses aren't yet made by brain scans but by counting up symptoms.

Of course I don't know this is true about Karren. Of course I can't diagnose him. I've never met him. I would be willing to put money on the fact that he had social problems as a teenager and that making friends when he was little was difficult. I have read thousands of pages of documents written by people with the disorder. Karren's writings align. I've watched the reasoning of people with high-functioning autism, Karren's aligns. I've talked to their families. I've read enough scholarly articles on the subject to fill my head with information.

Of course I may be wrong. Of course this doesn't also mean that M or K or anyone else didn't abuse children. But dang, the affect of this disability on families and divorces is brutal. Just wow. Nasty combo. The poor family. The public stage of the Internet, the media moment and the grandfather's calling is not helping.

And seriously, most people with high-functioning autism will deny it and refuse help, but if someone knows Karren personally and has a decent enough relationship with him to try to gently convince him to take a different approach without triggering a meltdown, this might be a good time to try to intervene.

Go ahead, flame away. I know your (EDIT: facetiously speaking to board in general, not RI and I have a Q) counter arguments because I have a functioning mirror neuron system.