Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[Schreech]

I think the (edit defence) would do everything in their power to discredit her and would successfully convince a jury that her father is a crazed, bitter, revengeful, hateful, conspiratorial fantasist who put the whole thing in her mind by reading too much into the Pace Memo and the Micklesen families dysfunction.

[Schreech]

Just when I think Ron has gone too far, even for me, with his talk of *underground psychiatrists* and two apostles....I read this

http://affirmation.org/resources/books- ... es/3067-2/

[_AmyJo]

Just when I think Ron has gone too far, even for me, with his talk of *underground psychiatrists* and to apostles....I read this

http://affirmation.org/resources/books- ... es/3067-2/

This is corruption at the highest levels, what happened in this case. Hank was an apostle's son as I recall. I remember this story when it hit the LDS airwaves years ago.

That guy got away with murder. It boggles the mind how bizarre his behavior was, and how many people he'd harmed while the church continued to turn a blind eye, he self-destructed.

[_Mary]

Here's Scott's talk which Ron references obliquely.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

[_Res Ipsa]

That's entirely possible RI (that the mother was covering for her husband). What's the best evidence you have that he hit her?
And even if he did hit her or she hit him or they both hit the children, does that mean that everything he has said about his suspicions of his daughter's alleged abuse before her telling him, or after in 2008 when she details the abuse, are untrue?

Again, Ron may be have been a terrible husband and an angry man out for revenge, but within that is a daughter who seems to have been molested and used for sexual gratification by her grandfather.
Have you seen the latest updates?

I've read them all. I haven't read through the Pace memo again, although I have in the past.

I haven't said he hit her. I said there is evidence that he hit her. Please remember, you are seeing only the evidence Ron wants you to see. Even then, the stuff he wants you to see contradicts his story in important ways. Ron didn't let you see the affidavit from Jean that introduced the photo of the bruise into evidence. Ron only let you see a selected few affidavits out of the 60 pages that were filed by the Mickelson family.

The evidence for:

1. Exhibit 6A, recorded conversation on 2/26/05: [Said to Jean] "So you have gone to the Bishop and to a professional and blamed me and wanted to go to your father about getting a divorce because I crossed the line in anger?"

2. Exhibit 7B-1, Eldest son's affidavit in support of bar complaint against attorney McConkie:

My mother also falsely claims that my father physically struck her. In the records, I have now gathered varying accounts of this falsehood from both my mother and her counsel. My father has shared with me overt recordings of their conversations prior to the divorce. With these, and my mother's personal writings, I can prove beyond any doubt that this material claim is also false, as it was physically impossible for my father to strike her (as per the physical descriptions she claimed). McConkie and my mother gave a fraudulent account in court-my father did not and could not hit my mother as they claim.

3. Ron's blog: " In her initial filing, she provided a picture of her thigh with a bruise on it, claiming I hit her. "

If Jean included a picture of a bruise in a filing, she would have to have filed it as an exhibit to an affidavit. Why didn't Ron show it to you? Why didn't Ron show you what he actually said in response in court instead of just using something he said the daughter said?

I can't show you the best evidence when Ron hides the evidence.

Ron's credibility is critical to the question of abuse, because he has presented himself as the sole witness of a critical piece of evidence: the 2002 phone call. He is asking you to trust his recollection of that phone call. Keep in mind, he wasn't a party to the phone call. He was not a witness of who said what to whom. But he never lays out how anyone else had described the phone call. We have to hunt through details of exhibits he wants us to read for other reasons to get any clues at all. But there are clues. Jean describes the phone call to the detective as a request that the daughter not sit on grandpa's lap because she is too big to sit on his lap. In the conversation the eldest son recorded with his mother, the mother says the "promiscuous" applies to the behavior of her cousin as a teenager, when she became pregnant. She does not use the term to describe the behavior of her daughter or her cousin when they were young children. And in Saturday's release, we find out for the first time that Jean has said that the whole promiscuity issue was her responsibility. In other words, there is evidence that the whole issue with the cousin and promiscuous behavior was something Jean said -- not the grandfather.

Also factor in the fact that portions of Ron's story are complete fabrications. He told you that, after his daughter had told him about the grandfather in January of 2008, he immediately began an intensive search for a therapist to get her help. How many times has he told you in his posts that the conversation with his daughter happened in January? In Saturday's release, we have a letter from Ron written in the weeks after that conversation, and he confirms that the date was in February after his daughter (and her brothers) were already in therapy. His claim that his ex and her lawyer "set him up" in the fall of '08 is complete fiction. How many examples do you need before you stop accepting Ron's claims about a telephone call that he wasn't even a party to?

Ron told everyone at the beginning that when he referred to a document for evidence, he'd post the document. But he's referred to literally dozens of documents that he's never posted. He's discussed these 60 pages of affidavits as if Jean's lawyer filed them right off the bat in the case. But, again, in Saturday's submission, I discovered that's not true. Jean filed for divorce in June of 2006. A year later, Ron filed the brief that he wrote on his own, even though he was represented by counsel, that got him chewed out by the Commissioner. This was a couple of months after Ron wrote his first letter to the Quorum of the 12 making all kinds of allegations against Mickelsen. Ron hasn't shown us either of those two documents. But it wasn't until two months after Ron filed the brief that the affidavits were filed by the Mickelsen family. Ron has led us to believe that the Mickelsen family fired the first shot in this little battle, but he won't show us what he said in the letter or, more importantly, said in his brief.

The exhibits in the Saturday submission make it clear that there is lots of documentation that Ron has told us about but isn't showing us. And what he isn't showing us is important to understanding how the story he is telling has evolved over time.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie, Look, at the centre of all this, whether Ron is an asshole or not, whether he is always reliable or only sometimes reliable. Whether he is out for personal revenge or is fighting for his daughter, or a combination of the both,....did Micklesen abuse his daughter and what can he realistically do about it other than what he is doing? Because in my opinion this case would not stand up well in court. K would be annihilated and I would think Ron knows it. But that doesn't mean Micklesen is innocent.

The problem, Mary, is that Ron has interjected himself so thoroughly into the daughter's story that any lawsuit would rise and fall on his credibility. He is the only person claiming that the grandfather called a six-year old's behavior "promiscuous." And after all the changes in his story over time and the magnitude of some of those changes, I don't think any jury is going to find his recollection of the phone call credible. And because he admittedly is talking to his children about the horrible things the MIckelsen family has done before and at the time the daughter first tells her story about the grandfather, I doubt any jury is going to trust the accuracy of that recollection. Even if it does, what we have is a 12 year old girl recalling 6-8 year old memories and remembering that she felt something on her bottom. She states that the conduct she describes occurred only when there were other people present in the room and never when they were alone. It would be very easy for a jury to believe either that her recollection was mistaken or that she was recalling feeling something in the grandfather's pockets.

But I don't think any lawyer would defend the case by annihilating the daughter. I think a good lawyer would portray her as being a victim of her father. And he has given any defense lawyer tons and tons of rope to hang him with.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think the prosecution would do everything in their power to discredit her and would successfully convince a jury that her father is a crazed, bitter, revengeful, hateful, conspiratorial fantasist who put the whole thing in her mind by reading too much into the Pace Memo and the Micklesen families dysfunction.

If you think that a defense lawyer could convince a jury of what you say, why are you not persuaded?

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

I'm still shaking my head at Ron's response to you. Why in the world would the daughter have to clear her name? Who, besides Ron, has ever suggested that her name was dirtied?

I feel nothing but compassion for this young woman. She lost a relationship with her mother as well as lots of other family through no fault of her own. And if she actually was molested, she's not responsible at all.

[_Res Ipsa]

That's entirely possible RI (that the mother was covering for her husband). What's the best evidence you have that he hit her?

Again there is that middle ground you jump right over.

I read Rest Ipsa's post as noting that there was NOT enough evidence in Ron's statement to conclude he did NOT hit her. Two very different things.

You read it correctly.

[_Mary]

It was late RI, yep Defence lawyer..I thought you would pick me up on that, but was too tired to change it. Have you seen his latest releases?

I happen to think that whether the father is credible or not that the daughter was molested by her grandfather. If it went to court, and it won't - the father is both the daughter's best friend and her worst enemy in terms of a successful outcome.

As I stated at the beginning of my participation in this thread my own interest in this case stems from my personal knowledge of having two friends, one stateside and one here in the UK experience significant childhood sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers. So I already knew how Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents and Bishops could handle these issues, which was to blame the child and then re victimise the adult for coming forward because it was in the past and all should be forgiven. I have since learned that there is good practice in the church but that it is a lottery and so practice is uneven.

I suspected that loyal royal families of the church may be working under different rules to the rest of us. Brother Curtis in Portland for instance, was excommunicated at least twice, forgiven under a theological rubric and permitted to work with children again with no warning to parents, whereas *Hank* the son in law of an apostle was never even reprimanded yet his abuse of children along with others was heart stoppingly evil. Again ecclesiastical leaders did nothing to warn others - I assume because it would damage the church reputation.