Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Jersey Girl]

You asked Jersey Girl what the whole point of this was.
In a nutshell

Mickelsen attempted to put the culpability of this on her (and on her name), casting her as the "promiscuous" one. Her name was tainted through his actions alone. And now, thus far, about 50,000 people have read and/or seen on whose shoulder this perverse saga rightfully rests. She has no shame in this, and therefore happy to see her name being cleared, mainly for her extended family members to see--they who ostracized her simply because her statements aligned with his accusations of her. 

Here we are questioning rightly or wrongly, the wisdom of Ron and his daughter putting all the information out there, when actually at the centre of all this is a 63 year old man, a general authority, a respected member of his community, who has accused a kid of being promiscuous with him. Labelled that child as showing the same *promiscuous* proclivities as Darla Adams (oh look...Ron is respecting someone's privacy) and where the child remembers the details at age 12.

Given that the police, the psychologist and the church leaders didn't want to know. What else is left except to use the media?
If someone had taken this seriously then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Use the media to do what?

The media isn't going to sue the GA.
The media isn't going to change the state statutes.
The media isn't a therapeutic option for the victim.
The media isn't going to change any damn thing.

He'd do better to visit RFM, try to rally the troops into a class action suit of some kind.

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay, RI. I haven't read every post on this thread. I gave up a couple of days or so ago when I was up to page 10 and the thread continued to grow before I was willing to play catch up. I'm pretty sure that you have kept up with it. I think it's because, like me, you like figuring things out.

In any case, I'm going to go out on a limb here, hold forth and give my testimony as it stands today regarding the whole nine yards. Keep in mind, this is just a Jersey Girl spit balling over here, okay?

1. I don't doubt that the child was abused.
2. I think there's a whopping case of co-dependency between husband and ex so thick you could cut it with a knife.
3. I think the case isn't prosecutable at a criminal level due to the statutes/criteria that you shared days ago.
4. I think that the father has a huge case of the ass for the ex, the GA, and the church.
5. I think that he's whipping everyone into a frenzy to draw attention to himself because he's a narcissistic asshole.
6. I think that if he were serious about seeking any sort of justice on behalf of the child, he'd try to bring action in a
civil suit.
7. He can't bring action in a civil suit for damages because he's traded the public frenzy whipping for taking the child to
a therapist who could possibly support suing for damages and also providing her with therapeutic options in the
process.
8. I think there is little to nothing to be gained and no purpose to be served by a thread such as this except to draw
attention to himself because if he wanted to advocate for his daughter, he'd be using conventional methods to do so.

How close did I get? Feel free to squash me like a bug if I'm way off base here.

Hey, at the beginning of this I said we would all take all these facts and put them together into a story that would make sense to us. I still see room for different reasonable stories.

1. I am undecided as to whether there actually was abuse.
2. I think there is pretty good evidence of a pretty dysfunctional relationship between husband and wife. There may be codependency, but it looks like there is lots more going on than that.
3. It is possible there was a prosecutable case back in 2008. I don't think there is today. (Combination of police dropping the ball and Ron mucking up the story.)
4. I think he has "the ass" for anyone that he perceives as crossing him. His ex, her father, and the church are high on that list.
5. I think he exhibits lots of behaviors that have been described to me as typical of narcissists. (I think narcissistic asshole may be redundant... ) I don't know why he is doing this. It may be guilt.
6. I'm not sure he has grounds for a civil suit. His daughter might. He said he tried to get several lawyers to file a civil case. All declined. I'm not surprised.
7. As a practical matter, Ron has mucked up any civil case that could be brought. The story that he is telling now (and told in his 2012 complaints) wanders so far from the factual evidence that he would have zero credibility after being cross examined on the stand. The defense lawyer would be able to put on lots of evidence of parental alienation on his part, and the daughter first came forward during that period of alienation. And I seriously doubt any credible expert at this point is going to be able to opine that the daughter's memories were/are accurate.
8. Maybe there is something to be gained for Ron. I really don't know. I doubt there is much, if anything, to be gained for anyone else.

[_Jersey Girl]

Continuing on here, just offering my services and guesses as it were. According to the information provided, the adult in question used a variety of methods of distraction when the alleged acts took place. That is to say, that distraction techniques were used to distract others present and also the child in question.

It's highly possible that the child was barely aware of the sexual activity while it was taking place, due to the distraction and the child's own innocent nature. There are certainly some children who have the wherewithal to know that a series of activities or behaviors are wrong at a young age. In the case of child sexual abuse of the behaviors that have been described, it's unlikely that the child in question was aware that the behaviors were wrong until 1) an adult identified it as wrong or 2) the child hit puberty and began, with increasing awareness of sexuality, understood that the behaviors were wrong and sexual in nature. This is the exact reason why, in some states, that the clock for the statute of limitations in sexual abuse of children doesn't start ticking until the child realizes they were abused and affected by said abuse.

I think I just lost my train of thought, but I'll get back on the horse if/when I feel I need to.

That makes sense.

Of course it makes sense. I know what I'm talking about. I'm as close as you're going to get on this board, to an expert of any sort (again, I'd offer EA) and I can give you sound developmental reasons for everything I'm seeing here.

Was the child interviewed at age 6 by a professional of any kind who recorded her account?

[_Res Ipsa]

You asked Jersey Girl what the whole point of this was.
In a nutshell

Mickelsen attempted to put the culpability of this on her (and on her name), casting her as the "promiscuous" one. Her name was tainted through his actions alone. And now, thus far, about 50,000 people have read and/or seen on whose shoulder this perverse saga rightfully rests. She has no shame in this, and therefore happy to see her name being cleared, mainly for her extended family members to see--they who ostracized her simply because her statements aligned with his accusations of her. 

Here we are questioning rightly or wrongly, the wisdom of Ron and his daughter putting all the information out there, when actually at the centre of all this is a 63 year old man, a general authority, a respected member of his community, who has accused a kid of being promiscuous with him. Labelled that child as showing the same *promiscuous* proclivities as Darla Adams (oh look...Ron is respecting someone's privacy) and where the child remembers the details at age 12.

Given that the police, the psychologist and the church leaders didn't want to know. What else is left except to use the media?
If someone had taken this seriously then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Mary, exactly what evidence is there that the grandfather labeled his granddaughter as promiscuous?

[_Res Ipsa]

He'd do better to visit RFM, try to rally the troops into a class action suit of some kind.

The folks at RfM dismissed Ron's story out of hand from the beginning. It hasn't even been discussed there in some time.

[_Mary]

Her name was tainted through his actions alone. And now, thus far, about 50,000 people have read and/or seen on whose shoulder this perverse saga rightfully rests. She has no shame in this, and therefore happy to see her name being cleared, mainly for her extended family members to see--they who ostracized her simply because her statements aligned with his accusations of her

. 

He and his daughter are attempting to publicly shame Mickelsen, I think with good reason.

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. 

Are you a social worker, psychologist or teacher? Trying to understand your level of expertise here? I grew tired of RBs continued claims to expertise. If you genuinely do have expertise in this area then I respect that.

[_Res Ipsa]

Was the child interviewed at age 6 by a professional of any kind who recorded her account?

No.

[_Jersey Girl]

Mary,

The reason I'm asking if the child was interviewed by a professional at age 6 shortly after the assertions were made regarding her behavior, is because the further out you get from the events, the memories, the accounts, and the testimony itself becomes unreliable.

And that, in my view, is where RK totally screwed up. Qualifying that by saying I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, so I don't know if the child was interviewed early on by a professional or not.

In any case, what is going on here is unproductive in terms of justice for the child. It's probably reached a point where the only realistic outcome is that the child (now adult) avail herself of therapeutic options and involve herself in advocacy.

[_Res Ipsa]

Mary,

The reason I'm asking if the child was interviewed by a professional at age 6 shortly after the assertions were made regarding her behavior, is because the further out you get from the events, the memories, the accounts, and the testimony itself becomes unreliable.

And that, in my view, is where RK totally screwed up. Qualifying that by saying I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, so I don't know if the child was interviewed early on by a professional or not.

In any case, what is going on here is unproductive in terms of justice for the child. It's probably reached a point where the only realistic outcome is that the child (now adult) avail herself of therapeutic options and involve herself in advocacy.

The first evidence we have of the daughter being taken to a mental health professional is the therapist during the divorce.

[_Jersey Girl]

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. 

Are you a social worker, psychologist or teacher? Trying to understand your level of expertise here? I grew tired of RBs continued claims to expertise. If you genuinely do have expertise in this area then I respect that.

I've already identified myself to you in the above portion of my post that you posted. Whether or not I have expertise, knowledge or experience should show in my posts. My interest in this case has to do with the best interest of the child victim whose case, in my view, was bungled from day one via RK's failure to use conventional methods in pursuing the case on behalf of his minor child. The view from where I sit indicates that it was largely kept within the family and that RK's bringing to the public forum served only to extend the "family" to anyone who reads his claims.

ETA: Early childhood education covers ages pre-birth to age 8.