Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Jersey Girl]

The case is marked as closed because it isn't sexual molestation. What the damn flipping hell.

Ron's telling the truth people.

In some states, such as my own, that would be considered sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust.

[_Jersey Girl]

Touching a child with the intent to cause sexual self-gratification is not a crime in Utah.

Can I point something important out to you?

He's NOT touching her for sexual gratification.

He's set up a situation where SHE is touching HIM.

And folks, this is why when you teach your children about appropriate touches, that you make sure to tell them that no one is allowed to touch their body in those places and THEY aren't allowed to touch anyone else there either.

[_Res Ipsa]

Touching a child with the intent to cause sexual self-gratification is not a crime in Utah.

Can I point something important out to you?

He's NOT touching her for sexual gratification.

He's set up a situation where SHE is touching HIM.

And folks, this is why when you teach your children about appropriate touches, that you make sure to tell them that no one is allowed to touch their body in those places and THEY aren't allowed to touch anyone else there either.

Yes, I get that. And the statute addresses both types of conduct. My point was that, the way the crime is defined, touching plus intended sexual gratification is not enough to constitute a crime under the Utah statute. And DA's have to deal with what the statute says.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let me say this again because it's too important for anyone to miss.

Young children under the age of 8, are basically concrete thinkers. They take what you say as literal.

In our efforts to educate young children about appropriate touches, we typically advise that the parts of our bodies that our bathing suits cover are private. They are to be touched only by the child, the parents and doctors. We tell our children that no one is allowed to touch you there except for those special people in a child's life.

If you are in a position to teach a young child or affiliated with a school that teaches about appropriate touches, you need to make sure that children are being taught that THEY aren't permitted to touch the body of others in those places either.

I cannot emphasize this enough.

If you are unsure about how your school is handling this type of education, assuming that they are, get in there now and find out what children are being taught because most program facilitators are missing that critical piece of teaching.

If you yourself have talked to a young child about appropriate touches and missed that critical piece yourself, go back and do it again, folks, and don't be ambiguous in what you say. Be direct. A child's well being could depend on it.

[_Mary]

Touching a child with the intent to cause sexual self-gratification is not a crime in Utah.

Glad you chimed back in RI. I don't understand what you are saying here.

So, I have started reading these submissions by reading the attachments first, so that I don't get distracted by Ron's arguments. Over the course of 30 years, I've read hundreds and hundreds of recorded statements, taken hundreds of depositions and statements under oath. The interview of Mickelsen by the detective is one of the worst, if not the worst, recorded interview that I've read. Full stop.I'd be curious to read the transcript of Ron's interview. I'd die of shock if he didn't talk about the phone call in that interview. If he described it to the detective the way he describes it today, there is no excuse for not re-interviewing Mickelsen and asking him about the phone call. None.The daughter deserved far better treatment from the police department than she was given. 

Agreed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Touching a child with the intent to cause sexual self-gratification is not a crime in Utah.

Glad you chimed back in RI. I don't understand what you are saying here.

So, I have started reading these submissions by reading the attachments first, so that I don't get distracted by Ron's arguments. Over the course of 30 years, I've read hundreds and hundreds of recorded statements, taken hundreds of depositions and statements under oath. The interview of Mickelsen by the detective is one of the worst, if not the worst, recorded interview that I've read. Full stop.I'd be curious to read the transcript of Ron's interview. I'd die of shock if he didn't talk about the phone call in that interview. If he described it to the detective the way he describes it today, there is no excuse for not re-interviewing Mickelsen and asking him about the phone call. None.The daughter deserved far better treatment from the police department than she was given. 

Agreed.

Mary, here's an extreme example to illustrate my point. Suppose we have a guy who gets sexual satisfaction from patting children on the head. He deliberately pats children on the head for sexual gratification. Given the wording of the statute in Utah, that wouldn't be a crime. He isn't touching any of specifically enumerated locations on the body. And head patting would not be considered "indecent liberties," as it isn't in the same category as touching those parts of the body. It's just a technical point about the wording of the statute. But DA's have to prove the elements of the statute, and I wanted to be clear about what the statute actually says.

[_Mary]

Okay. Got ya. Thanks.

[_Johannes]

Kairos, that's really interesting.

I know of two cases in the UK where the ward exec was told not to contact the police and he would be reprimanded if he did.
The SP had been told by the European helpline that it was church policy to never tell police and leave it to the perpetrator to come forward.

In one case , where the police were contacted, the priesthood leaders were told they were not to give evidence.

One case 2008, and another 2013.

Mary, I'm in the UK and I was a lawyer in a previous life. My law is rusty, but the question comes to mind of whether the part in bold amounted to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It would depend on the facts of the case, of course, but there might be some police interest in investigating it.

On the other hand, the simple act of encouraging someone not to tell the police in the first place is not necessarily illegal, as there are no mandatory reporting laws in England and Wales. In fact, there is a current debate about whether to introduce such laws. It may be one recommendation that comes out of the current inquiry by Justice Goddard, whcih you may have been following (and which is looking at the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, amongst other bodies).

Also, it's worth noting that there is no clergy-penitent privilege in the law of England and Wales, so no-one can hide behind that. My recollection is that a claim of confidentiality by a cleric is weighed by the judge, in an evidential context, in the same way as a claim of confidentiality by a secular figure like a doctor.

[_Mary]

Mary, I'm in the UK and I was a lawyer in a previous life. My law is rusty, but the question comes to mind of whether the part in bold amounted to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It would depend on the facts of the case, of course, but there might be some police interest in investigating it.

On the other hand, the simple act of encouraging someone not to tell the police in the first place is not necessarily illegal, as there are no mandatory reporting laws in England and Wales. In fact, there is a current debate about whether to introduce such laws. It may be one recommendation that comes out of the current inquiry by Justice Goddard, whcih you may have been following (and which is looking at the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, amongst other bodies).

Also, it's worth noting that there is no clergy-penitent privilege in the law of England and Wales, so no-one can hide behind that. My recollection is that a claim of confidentiality by a cleric is weighed by the judge, in an evidential context, in the same way as a claim of confidentiality by a secular figure like a doctor.

That's really interesting. Given that the European hotline would/should have UK lawyers, I assume they would be claiming legality under client/penitent privilege? I will tell the person that relayed this information to me.

[_Johannes]

That's really interesting. Given that the European hotline would/should have UK lawyers, I assume they would be claiming legality under client/penitent privilege? I will tell the person that relayed this information to me.

Yes, what the lawyers say to their church clients on the hotline would be covered by legal professional privilege (which is usually sacrosanct in English law). But what a bishop or priesthood leader says to a church member has no such status. The judge would decide whether to admit such a conversation on the same basis as a conversation between, say, a doctor and a patient.