Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Mary]

Jersey Girl, again. I am not doubting your genuine concern for Ron's daughter, what I don't appreciate is your assuming the worst of me on a number of counts.

1. I genuinely hadn't seen your update where you recognised that the interview was videotaped.
2. I too have the best interests of the daughter af heart.

If I were to post a private email, for instance, in which the daughter seconds what her father said above, then I doubt you would accept that as evidence. So. It's a matter of trust. If Ron is lying about his daughter's push to have him publish all this information publicly, then Ron deserves to be pilloried. But he isn't lying.

Why don't you repsect her wishes rather than nannying her?

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, again. I am not doubting your genuine concern for Ron's daughter, what I don't appreciate is your assuming the worst of me on a number of counts.

1. I genuinely hadn't seen your update where you recognised that the interview was videotaped.
2. I too have the best interests of the daughter af heart.

If I were to post a private email, for instance, in which the daughter seconds what her father said above, then I doubt you would accept that as evidence. So. It's a matter of trust. If Ron is lying about his daughter's push to have him publish all this information publicly, then Ron deserves to be pilloried. But he isn't lying.

Why don't you repsect her wishes rather than nannying her?

Oh are you still talking to me? I'm too busy reading a 560+ post thread and learning how message boards work.



I asked RI for a link to the transcript. I didn't request that the transcript be posted. And why is that, you ask? Because it's inappropriate (no matter what Daddy says) to publish the interview of a vulnerable child's words on the Internet who is relating the circumstances of her childhood sexual abuse.

I removed a portion of my analysis/feedback of the interview transcript. Here are the highlights. Child advocate and mandated reporter for 30+ years. Strong and well practiced guidance skills interviewing young children for a variety of purposes. Over 30 years of annual training regarding child abuse and neglect. Taken abuse/neglect reports from children that were used to make reports to social services. Witnessed/observed at least one police interview of a child who had been sexually abused that involved both audio and video tape, and the court case that followed.

And that's why I offered an analysis of the interviewing techniques.

There is nothing on this earth that could make me copy and post portions of a minor child's interview with police or social services on this message board. There is nothing that will stop me from criticizing those who do in spite of their justifications for doing such a thing, no matter what you or the father claims. And why is that? It creates a level of accessibility that should never see the light of day on the Internet.

As I indicated previously, the words of a vulnerable child need to be treated with a high level of discretion and respect, and particularly when it's unknown if the now adult victim ever received therapeutic treatment.

No matter how many posts you make to or about me. No matter how many times you say the father has the child's permission. No matter how many times you try to justify it. No matter how many times you tell me to "move on" or whatever it was. When I see it happening, you can count on me to protest such behavior.

[_Mary]

Lots of adults who were abused as children, choose to go public. They have my admiration. Not my condemnation. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[_Jersey Girl]

RI,

If you're still reading here, I'd like you to comment on this by RK.

The ONLY reason her name is all over the public record in the first place is because of his accusations against her when she was six. Had he not made those accusations against her in the first place; and, had she not stepped forward after putting the pieces together, this story would have gone the way of the many Catholic sagas.

Your take on that?

[_Mary]

You obviously feel that Ron should never have published these interviews even with his daughter's permission, (they are on a public Facebook post and a public blog to which everyone has access) yet you ask to read them. Don't you think that is a little hypocritical?

[_Jersey Girl]

You obviously feel that Ron should never have published these interviews even with his daughter's permission, (they are on a public Facebook post and a public blog to which everyone has access) yet you ask to read them. Don't you think that is a little hypocritical?

Oh for god sakes. I asked for a link to a child interview to critique the techniques used based on RI's comments because I'm probably as close as anyone's going to get to an expert (I'd offer up EA as well) around here in child interview techniques and which I managed to do without naming names or didn't you notice that?

No, as a matte of fact I don't think that Ron should be publishing the interviews or other related material on the Internet nor do I think it particularly wise for him to have you (voluntarily or otherwise) and others act as messenger in reposting them on this message board.

And why is that? Because it serves no real purpose and he loses control over the narrative.

This isn't rocket science, Mary.

[_Mary]

This isn't rocket science, Mary.

No it isn't. You asked for the link to the full text which was provided for you. That link, with full names, dates and details is still there above for everyone to see.

[_Jersey Girl]

This isn't rocket science, Mary.

No it isn't. You asked for the link to the full text which was provided for you. That link, with full names, dates and details is still there above for everyone to see.

No kidding, right?

It's a discrete link slipped into a post. The transcript for which isn't plastered directly on this board for anyone and their dog to access via a Google search, except for the excerpt you yourself posted on this thread names included.

Is there something you don't understand about that? Have I failed to express my ideas with clarity?

It's possible that others have done the same and I missed it. If so, they were wrong.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI,

If you're still reading here, I'd like you to comment on this by RK.

The ONLY reason her name is all over the public record in the first place is because of his accusations against her when she was six. Had he not made those accusations against her in the first place; and, had she not stepped forward after putting the pieces together, this story would have gone the way of the many Catholic sagas.

Your take on that?

It's avoidance of responsibility for his own actions.

[_Jersey Girl]

What's the bloody point of all this? Has the point whooshed right over my head?

RK has a gripe with the LDS church and the GA in the handling of a case of childhood sexual abuse.

And what? What purpose does this thread or blog or Facebook comments serve?

Is he going to prosecute Scott? I think not.
Has he already tried to prosecute the other GA and failed?
Has he filed a civil suit over this? Defamation maybe?

And if he hasn't done any of the above, what the hell is the purpose of this axe grinding?