Mary wrote:That seems to be the case.
Other than his own analysis, are you suggesting that the documents Ron has released have been fabricated by him?
RI suggested that the divorce may have been precipitated over Ron being violent with his wife. I was answering that allegation specifically where Ron states the following....K... spoke up and said, “She did that on the exercise cycle, last year. I saw it bathing with her and she told me about it.”
Are you really suggesting that this is a lie given that his daughter is aware of and is reading his releases. Are you stating that this man has utterly no credibility whatsoever in anything because he has released these documents and you disapprove?
Mary, let me suggest something to you. A faithful, Mormon woman who believes that her husband holds the authority of the priesthood in the home might not respond to the question "Hey mom, where did you get that bruise?" with "Oh, it's from where your father smacked me around last night." In fact, as is fairly common with women who have been physically assaulted by their husbands, she might cover for her husband in order to shield the children from the event.
When people are reciting a narrative when they are not under the pressure of being questioned, they will generally do their best to avoid telling a direct lie. So when you read something that sounds circuitous when a direct response would be expected, that's a red flag that they are being evasive. With this in mind, let's look at what Ron actually said:
In her initial filing, she provided a picture of her thigh with a bruise on it, claiming I hit her. When I met with the children for the first time in late June 2006 (after being taken to Idaho), the kids naturally inquired as to why we were getting divorced. I mentioned this picture of the bruise on Jean’s thigh, that I supposedly hit her. Kylee spoke up and said, “She did that on the exercise cycle, last year. I saw it bathing with her and she told me about it.”
First, notice what he never says: "I didn't hit my wife." Why not? Perhaps because addressing the issue this way allows him to say only literally true things. Because you think Ron is a credible person, you just bought into the fact that Jean lied. You never stopped to think about the possibility that Jean did lie, but to her daughter at the time for perfectly understandable reasons. It's even consistent with these facts that Ron actually knew how Jean had covered for him when he asked the question of his children. This is how manipulative people operate, and I think it is extremely naïve to just accept Ron's narrative without stopping and asking yourself if there is another interpretation of the facts that could be true.
So which is true, Mary? Did Ron hit Jean and she covered for him with the kids. Or did she just lie, forgetting she'd already told the truth to her daughter?
I've got stuff to do, but I can show you more examples of this type of evasion in Ron's story. And I can show you exactly how he creates a false impression by telling strictly true statements. If you blindly follow along, you're just being led by the nose by someone who is not being honest with you.