Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Rosebud]

Let's keep personal insults out of this Rosebud and assume the best of each other. There is a proven track record of abuse victims going to the press, in fact anyone who will listen to them, in order to get justice. It has worked in the past. Ron states he is doing this for the benefit of his daughter. I believe his good intentions, you don't, right?

PS, first time online I have ever been called a troll.

Uh..... Karren is throwing public stones at his ex-wife and others. Sexual shaming is exceptionally personal.

I'm not the person who brought personal traits into this discussion. Karren is. In a disgusting way. Your defense of him is disconcerting.

I am going to ignore any assertions that he is doing this for the good of his daughter because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of victims' needs.

[Guest]

Can someone give a 3 paragraph synopsis, a Cliff Notes version, of where things now stand on Karren's accusations against Mickelson?

I long ago stopped reading, but see that this thread never seems willing to die. So where does the evidence of the accusations stand at this point?

You want a nutshell?

OK.

1. There was a phone call in 2002, when the daughter was 6, between the mom (Jean) and her parents, the Mickelsons. Jean then described the call to Ron. We don't have a description of what was said on the call from either of the Mickelsons or from Jean. We have Ron's version of the call today. We haven't seen any notes or other contemporaneous documentation of what was said in the call. Ron's story is that the daughter couldn't be allowed to sit on her grandfather's lap anymore because she had been too physical with him, that she was displaying the same promiscuous patterns as one of Jean's cousins (who got pregnant in high school), and that when the cousin was six she had been all over Mickeldsen.

2. In 2008, when the daughter is 12, Ron asks the kids' therapist if the daughter had told her anything about being molested by her grandfather during her previous visits. He said he had instructed the daughter to tell the therapist about it in her next session. In her next session, the daughter, after being prompted by the therapist, tells her that her maternal grandfather sexually abused her when she was six by rubbing her thighs and she could feel his weenie.

3. The therapist made a report to CPS. About a month later, a detective contacted her and said the claims were unsubstantiated. We don't know what investigation was done, but Ron apparently is going to release some of it in his blog.

4. In 2012, Ron filed a complaint against the therapist with the board of licensing. In it, he stated that the daughter had disclosed to him that she had first told him about being molested while they were driving in the car. She first told him that she knew why she couldn't sit on her dad's lap anymore when she was six. The complaint does not give any details about what she said after that. There may be earlier documentation of this story, but we don't have it.

5. In 2016, Ron has given us a more detailed version of what the daughter said in the car. She said that she felt his weenie. She said he would tickle her leg and knees with one hand and rub her inner thigh close to her crotch and her vagina. This happened every time she was with him. Her earliest memory of the molestation was on strip to Mexico with her grandparents when she was 3. She also told Ron she couldn't stand to have anything in her back pockets because it reminded her of her grandfather. Ron says the memory was triggered by her participation in an annual pageant at school for her Spanish Immersion program. She said the pageant always reminded her of her grandfather. Their may be earlier documentation of this story, but we don't have it.

6. The divorce was very acrimonious, with both parents telling the kids things to make the other look bad. Although represented by counsel, Ron filed a brief early on that made sex abuse allegations. He says he told the first therapist he called about the phone call. He told his sons that their sister had been sexually abused by the grandfather before any investigation had occurred. We have no direct evidence as to whether he discussed the phone call with the daughter before she talked about her memories or whether he had attempted to elicit any recollection from her.

Okay, six paragraphs. This one is tough to TL/DR.

[_Rosebud]

Can someone give a 3 paragraph synopsis, a Cliff Notes version, of where things now stand on Karren's accusations against Mickelson?

I long ago stopped reading, but see that this thread never seems willing to die. So where does the evidence of the accusations stand at this point?

Sock, this thread is ridiculous. That's the best thing about message boards, though, no?

The answer is that the case itself isn't worth the digital ink.

Time to let it die.

[_kairos]

Reads like a legalistic Book of Mormon!

[_Mary]

Adding to what RI said, when the wife filed for divorce in 2006, a meeting with Scott (related by marriage) took place at the Micklesen compound in which a good number of pretty nasty affidavits were composed in order to make Ron look bad. This also later included witness testimony of Ron's mum against him (she is apparently close to the Micklesen family).

Ron's son writes an affidavit in which he remembers being told by a Mickelsen uncle that he had better side with his mum.
Ecclesiastical pressure appears to have been used on the children against their father on more than one occasion as well as against Ron's brother who provided him with a positive character witness whilst calling into question the influence Micklesen attempted to wield over him against Ron.

Either Ron is a paranoid fantasist who has brainwashed his children into adulthood based on revenge and a desire to embarrass the Mickelsen's and his ex wife or Micklesen is a child abuser and he wants justice for his daughter.

[_Res Ipsa]

Adding to what RI said, when the wife filed for divorce in 2006, a meeting with Scott (related by marriage) took place at the Micklesen compound in which a good number of pretty nasty affidavits were composed in order to make Ron look bad. This also later included witness testimony of Ron's mum against him (she is apparently close to the Micklesen family).

Ron's son writes an affidavit in which he remembers being told by a Mickelsen uncle that he had better side with his mum.
Ecclesiastical pressure appears to have been used on the children against their father on more than one occasion as well as against Ron's brother who provided him with a positive character witness whilst calling into question the influence Micklesen attempted to wield over him against Ron.

Either Ron is a paranoid fantasist who has brainwashed his children into adulthood based on revenge and a desire to embarrass the Mickelsen's and his ex wife or Micklesen is a child abuser and he wants justice for his daughter.

I don't buy an either-or scenario. There is lots of room between those two extreme versions of the story for the truth to rest comfortably.

[_Mary]

RI, believe it or not, I actually agree with you. But if Ron truly believes Micklesen is a child abuser then this would explain his behaviour pretty well.

The nasty affidavits produced by the Micklesen side, the attempts by the Micklesen side to poison the children against their father, to use wider ecclesiatical pressure against the kids and anyone supporting Ron, would have put him, I think, in fight or flight mode. Having a psychologist on board who specialises in battered wife syndrome, was LDS, and took the mother's side against a guy who already feels the whole world is working against him, just compounded the problem not only for him but the kids also.

What I have noticed about royal lds families (and we did have a few over here in the UK) is that they tend to live behind a kind of righteous, loving facade, when a crap storm can be occurring behind the scenes. I have personal experience of watching this in my own youth. The Mickelsen's will have had years of that. It's in their blood. Rightly or wrongly.

Ron, I think, has tried to explain the rather unnecessary actions taken against him (begun by the wider Micklesen clan with the involvement of an LDS apostle semi related to the clan), he does this by seeing Micklesen as hiding behind the coat tails of the church to protect his pedophile past. There are other explanations, including a father protecting his daughter solely against a vicious, arrogant, abusive, controlling husband, but I don't buy that extreme.

The whole thing is puzzling. But underneath that we still have the very likely possibility of a sexually abused minor who was continually shut down under the guise that her father had fabricated her abuse for revenge. That needs to be sorted and I don't think any of the family will find peace until it is.

[_Mary]

I do have a certain respect for Ron. He fought for his kids. He didn't crease under extreme pressure from a giant corporation or Mormon royalty who did their darndest to discredit him. If he were my dad, I would have nothing but respect for him for not giving up on me, for supporting me and for believing in me.

As for the possibility that Ron sexually abused his own children, given that his wife and kids acknowledge that he hasn't, then even broaching the subject with speculation is utterly ridiculous.

The daughter shows all the signs, even by admission of her grandfather, (who states she was promiscuous with him at age 6), of having been sexualised by someone. Most likely candidate - the grandfather. If she learned how to please grandpa by wiggling on his lap, with no thought that she was doing anything inappropriate then her behaviour was understandable. (This actually happened to my friend who at age 4 attempted to give her father oral sex in the swimming pool in front of everyone, because that made him happy - he slapped her and told her it was wrong - can you imagine her confusion when on previous occasions it was not only not wrong but the ultimate way to make daddy happy and to love her).


Though to a lesser scale - inappropriate touching by grandpa around the genital area and *tickling the grandaughter's legs* to the extent he gets sexually aroused. That's abuse, that's the sexualizing of a little girl.

She needs justice, an apology, anything, but what she got was further labelling. Disgusting. Well, done Ron for being on her side despite all your own issues, and well done for continuing to fight for her even though she is now an adult, and married.

[_AmyJo]

I do have a certain respect for Ron. He fought for his kids. He didn't crease under extreme pressure from a giant corporation or Mormon royalty who did their darndest to discredit him. If he were my dad, I would have nothing but respect for him for not giving up on me, for supporting me and for believing in me.

As for the possibility that Ron sexually abused his own children, given that his wife and kids acknowledge that he hasn't, then even broaching the subject with speculation is utterly ridiculous.

The daughter shows all the signs, even by admission of her grandfather, (who states she was promiscuous with him at age 6), of having been sexualised by someone. Most likely candidate - the grandfather. If she learned how to please grandpa by wiggling on his lap, with no thought that she was doing anything inappropriate then her behaviour was understandable. (This actually happened to my friend who at age 4 attempted to give her father oral sex in the swimming pool in front of everyone, because that made him happy - he slapped her and told her it was wrong - can you imagine her confusion when on previous occasions it was not only not wrong but the ultimate way to make daddy happy and to love her).


Though to a lesser scale - inappropriate touching by grandpa around the genital area and *tickling the grandaughter's legs* to the extent he gets sexually aroused. That's abuse, that's the sexualizing of a little girl.

She needs justice, an apology, anything, but what she got was further labelling. Disgusting. Well, done Ron for being on her side despite all your own issues, and well done for continuing to fight for her even though she is now an adult, and married.

Well said, Mary.

It could be that in the ensuing years she nor her dad has had any closure. No apology forthcoming from the Mickelson camp. They've accused her of making up stories and of Ron planting them. Her grandfather like her mother were willing and indeed sacrificed their relationship with the girl to protect their status quo - by shaming and silencing Kylee and by extension Ron into submission to go along.

She will never be made whole in relation to her mother or grandfather. The apology and understanding she has wanted since childhood isn't going to happen.

I see this as a way for Ron to get absolution for his daughter. I still feel he could find a competent therapist in Utah if he were to really look for one. That does him and his daughter a further injustice by insisting there aren't any. There's just so many licensed therapists operating in the state of Utah - more than the number of attorneys in a square mile to go around. With some turpitude he could find someone who is capable and worth their weight in gold in helping his daughter cope with her loss.

They aren't all LDS, that just isn't reasonable given that the total population of Utah is only app 40% LDS today, if that.

[_Rosebud]

I do have a certain respect for Ron. He fought for his kids. He didn't crease under extreme pressure from a giant corporation or Mormon royalty who did their darndest to discredit him. If he were my dad, I would have nothing but respect for him for not giving up on me, for supporting me and for believing in me.

As for the possibility that Ron sexually abused his own children, given that his wife and kids acknowledge that he hasn't, then even broaching the subject with speculation is utterly ridiculous.

The daughter shows all the signs, even by admission of her grandfather, (who states she was promiscuous with him at age 6), of having been sexualised by someone. Most likely candidate - the grandfather. If she learned how to please grandpa by wiggling on his lap, with no thought that she was doing anything inappropriate then her behaviour was understandable. (This actually happened to my friend who at age 4 attempted to give her father oral sex in the swimming pool in front of everyone, because that made him happy - he slapped her and told her it was wrong - can you imagine her confusion when on previous occasions it was not only not wrong but the ultimate way to make daddy happy and to love her).


Though to a lesser scale - inappropriate touching by grandpa around the genital area and *tickling the grandaughter's legs* to the extent he gets sexually aroused. That's abuse, that's the sexualizing of a little girl.

She needs justice, an apology, anything, but what she got was further labelling. Disgusting. Well, done Ron for being on her side despite all your own issues, and well done for continuing to fight for her even though she is now an adult, and married.

From memory, corrections and additions welcome:

1. Pace report comes out in 1991. Karren has immediate access to it.
2. Karren's daughter demonstrates pre-sexualized behavior with her grandfather. (Late 1990s?)
3. Several years pass that give Karren enough sense of stability in his marriage that his wife's filing of divorce papers will come as a surprise.
4. Karren's wife goes on a long trip with family. (2006?)
5. Karren receives his wife's surprise divorce filing. (2006)
6. Karren immediately threatens his wife saying she will lose the kids if she divorces him.
7. Karren files accusations of child sexual abuse against Mikelsen in response to the divorce filing.
8. Karren's wife files a request for temporary relief asking for an evaluation of Karren's fitness as a parent and money to pay the bills (the "affidavits").
9. Karren's daughter remembers her grandfather sexually abusing her (6 months after "affidavits").
10. Karren makes covert recording of his ex-wife and her attorney and uses the recording to leverage primary custody.
11. Family conflict continues, ten years pass.
12. Mormon media moment arises. Opportunity to address child abuse publicly and be listened to arises.
12. Karren makes public accusation against Mikelsen and says his daughter is going to publicly accuse Mikelsen as well.
14. Karren builds the stage to make the claim that his divorce was a conspiracy put together by Mikelsen and Scott using his ex-wife's motions for temporary orders (the "affidavits") and evidence that his ex-wife's father paid for the divorce to support that conspiracy. Karren brings up the 1991 Pace report during his public accusations.

My questions:

1) How would the fact that Karren had access to and believed in the Pace report affect his thinking post-1991?
2) If Karren believed in the report and believed it had veracity, how might that have affected his perception of what was happening when he found out about the possibility that his daughter demonstrated presexualized behavior?
3) Why did Karren wait to mention anything about the presexualized behavior prior to his wife's divorce filing several years later?
4) Why is Karren trying to make it look like his wife's temporary filings were "affidavits" used against him and that he was a victim of Mikelsen paying for the divorce when he filed the first accusations and kept money from his ex-wife forcing her to go to her father for help? Why is he trying to paint a picture of a conspiracy?

It looks to me like Karren is going to try to provide evidence of the Pace report. He is going to try to make the claim that while his ex-wife was on a trip, her father and Scott did something to her that made her choose to divorce him. Then, he is going to say that they did that kind of stuff to his daughter, too, and is asking his daughter to provide the witness he needs.

Some more questions:

1) If Karren believes the Pace report, then why didn't he do something about it prior to his ex-wife's divorce filing?
2) Since it seems everything was hunky dory until his ex-wife filed, and he believes that actions could have been taken against his ex-wife and children prior to the filing, then was he complicit in those actions until he was served divorce papers?
3) What information are we missing about the fight between Karren and Mikelsen that might explain why Karren waited until divorce papers were filed to take action on the matter of the safety of his children?
4) Why are we supposed to believe that Mikelsen controls what his daughter does and believes, but Karren doesn't control what his daughter does and believes?

I don't have the information, of course. But I don't think it's unreasonable, if one is going to take the position that the Pace report is accurate, that based on the story Karren has told us, that if Mikelsen is guilty then Karren is also guilty. That's what the Pace report is about: conspiracy. Karren is the one painting conspiracies.

And even more questions:

1) So is this all hogwash or not?
2) What's Karren's real incentive here?
3) Is Karren so unable to communicate effectively (because of high-functioning autism or another factor) that he's saying something real and his message is lost in his inability to communicate or is he just as guilty as anyone else?
4) Is he just unwell? If he is unwell, is he unwell because he is also a victim?

And what the hell is the Pace report really?

If Karren wants to paint conspiracy, he paints himself into it.