Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't think he proved anything with his claims. The promiscuous comment seems to be made up and the alleged abuse seems exaggerated as well. These unsubstantiated claims happen too much in family court because people are emotional and bitter. This is what it looks like to me in this case.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think he proved anything with his claims. The promiscuous comment seems to be made up and the alleged abuse seems exaggerated as well. These unsubstantiated claims happen too much in family court because people are emotional and bitter. This is what it looks like to me in this case.

I wouldn't call the "promiscuous" comment made up. I would say it could well have been a word used at some point by the mother to describe her cousin in the cousin's teenage years, which Ron's brain over time incorporated into his memory of the phone call.

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't think he proved anything with his claims. The promiscuous comment seems to be made up and the alleged abuse seems exaggerated as well. These unsubstantiated claims happen too much in family court because people are emotional and bitter. This is what it looks like to me in this case.

I wouldn't call the "promiscuous" comment made up. I would say it could well have been a word used at some point by the mother to describe her cousin in the cousin's teenage years, which Ron's brain over time incorporated into his memory of the phone call.

Fair enough regarding the origin of the use of the word "promiscuous." However, regardless, like you, I don't think it originated from the phone call. Nevertheless, to be charitable, divorce is difficult and makes people say and do things they wouldn't otherwise do. I think that is this case.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Chap,

I cuss because it's literally organic to how I talk. I type how I communicate. It's probably due to being in the military for 20-something years. My apologies.

That said, Ron Karren is a turd monster.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Fair enough regarding the origin of the use of the word "promiscuous." However, regardless, like you, I don't think it originated from the phone call. Nevertheless, to be charitable, divorce is difficult and makes people say and do things they wouldn't otherwise do. I think that is this case.

I think that being charitable when trying to figure out what happened from a body of evidence is a good heuristic. In other words, if two versions of a story fit the facts equally well, go with the one that requires the less extreme interpretation. In this particular case, I could claim Ron is lying. Or, I could attribute the discrepancies to memory distortions, which are pretty typical given the way brains work. Or I could say that members of a conspiracy deliberately omitted information from several different documents. The charitable explanation is faulty memory.

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't think you can attribute this to only "faulty memory." Why did he wait so long to bring this out if it existed? Why now? Why didn't he do anything at the time of the call? Why was it only in the context of a divorce case that these unsubstantiated allegations arose? Why didn't he have counsel representing him in this? Was if because he couldn't substantiate his pet allegations?

It looks invented and it looks like he couched his daughter into the "faulty memory" of an exaggerated lap incident. This was probably done as a reaction to highly contested divorce proceedings. Many have done the same thing as Mr. Karren when they are faced with divorce and many will continue to do so in the future. It's sad that people go to the level of dragging their children into these invented stories but that is the reality of family court.

[_Mary]

I don't think you can attribute this to only "faulty memory." Why did he wait so long to bring this out if it existed? Why now? Why didn't he do anything at the time of the call? Why was it only in the context of a divorce case that these unsubstantiated allegations arose? Why didn't he have counsel representing him in this? Was if because he couldn't substantiate his pet allegations?

It looks invented and it looks like he couched his daughter into the "faulty memory" of an exaggerated lap incident. This was probably done as a reaction to highly contested divorce proceedings. Many have done the same thing as Mr. Karren when they are faced with divorce and many will continue to do so in the future. It's sad that people go to the level of dragging their children into these invented stories but that is the reality of family court.

Okay. Call came when child was six. No more sitting on grandpa's lap (this was strictly adhered to).
Ron probably thinks...well that's creepy. I would think...that's creepy.
Ron's marriage is going down the pan. He tells Micklesen before the divorce that he believes J's problems are due to him. Mickelsen's offer of money leads Ron to think that he may have abused J.
J takes kids. 60 pages of affidavits are filed stating Ron is an awful person.
Those family members giving Ron a positive character witness are warned off by church leaders including Micklesen.
In 2012 K, Ron's daughter remembers why she couldn't sit on grandpa's lap. Ron is shocked and angered. His suspicions are confirmed.
No one will listen.
Ron goes public 3 years ago by producing a video which is uploaded to youtube.
2016 - people notice, Ron is asked by his daughter to release documents so as to bring a wider awareness to the case.

[_Lemmie]

2016 - people notice, Ron is asked by his daughter to release documents so as to bring a wider awareness to the case.

Just to clarify, is this known as a fact? Or is the known part that Ron said his daughter asked him to release documents? I'm not being suspicious, it's just that it makes a difference when reading these posts to have things like this stated exactly factually.

This is a huge thread and I've tried to keep up, but if I just missed something and you were simply listing the timeline as specifically given by Ron, could you clarify that? Thanks.

[_Mary]

This was Ron's response to me. I have asked him twice now because like others my concern was for the children, and actually for the privacy of the wife. The children have given their permission. The ex wife has not.

Thank you for your concern Mary; this last "push" on my part was made at her request. (She wanted to do a blog for other victims, to clear her name, etc.). She is actively reading these posts, and quite satisfied in the fact that her name is being cleared while her grandfather is still alive to see it.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think you can attribute this to only "faulty memory." Why did he wait so long to bring this out if it existed? Why now? Why didn't he do anything at the time of the call? Why was it only in the context of a divorce case that these unsubstantiated allegations arose? Why didn't he have counsel representing him in this? Was if because he couldn't substantiate his pet allegations?

It looks invented and it looks like he couched his daughter into the "faulty memory" of an exaggerated lap incident. This was probably done as a reaction to highly contested divorce proceedings. Many have done the same thing as Mr. Karren when they are faced with divorce and many will continue to do so in the future. It's sad that people go to the level of dragging their children into these invented stories but that is the reality of family court.

Oh, I agree. "Faulty memory" doesn't explain everything about the entire story. I do think it explains his claim that the grandfather accused the daughter of "promiscuous" behavior in the 2002 phone call. "Faulty memory" may not be the best way to describe it. "Motivated memory" may be a better description. There is evidence, provided by Ron, that he began to suspect Mickelsen of being a child abuser before the divorce. Only the alleged victim was Ron's wife, not his daughter. Once that idea is in place, that Mickelsen is a child abuser, it is easy for the brain to interpret evidence in a selective way to confirm that idea (motivated reasoning/confirmation bias). It is also easy for memories to change to conform with that idea, which is what I think of as "motivated memory." I think that explains most of the discrepancies I find between the story Ron tells us today and the documentary evidence he has given us.

I think it would be consistent with the evidence to conclude that Ron first became convinced that Mickelsen had sexually abused Ron's wife as a child, which led to a suspicion that he had molested the daughter. That suspicion, then, led him to view the 2002 phone call as having a more sinister implication than he originally thought. If it's true that he questioned his daughter about the lap sitting, which could have influenced her own memories, it could very well be that he did so out of the belief that his daughter had been abused rather than out of anger to get back at his wife and her family. Again, there are other stories consistent with the evidence, and I haven't concluded which of them I think best fits the evidence.

So, one possible set of answers to your questions is:

1. Ron didn't do anything at the time of the phone call because the phone call didn't indicate any sexualized behavior by the daughter.
2. He began to tell his current story around 2012 because he hadn't, as he says, "connected the dots" himself in 2008-2009. He had to reinterpret a bunch of evidence to fit his conclusion that Mickelsen was a child molester and he and his daughter were the victims of a massive cover up. That takes time and thinking.
3. Ron began making unsubstantiated allegations that Mickelsen was a child molester months before the divorce.
4. Ron went through two lawyers before he began representing himself. He has provided a story about each, but I don't think the stories square with the evidence.
5. Based on my own experience, I suspect Ron disagreed with the advice his lawyers gave him, and they weren't willing to represent him the way he wanted them to.

I do think there are examples of intentional deception on Ron's part, but they don't involve telling outright lies.