Skip to comments.
FOX News -Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against MItchells
FOX News ^
| March 18, 2003
| Shepard Smith
Posted on 03/18/2003 5:49:25 PM PST by ewing
just the update
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: assault; kidnapping; mitchells; smarts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 361-366 next last
To: RecentConvert
Well I was born blonde but I got better.
181
posted on
03/18/2003 9:35:56 PM PST
by
Theophilus
(ostentation is my forte)
To: Skywalk
I agree and I think the DA is going to go full steam ahead on the sexual assault charges. I don't think this is a slam dunk case. I can just imagine it now the defense will bring up all the pictures and witnesses sighting Elizabeth around town with the Mitchells. Plus they will have to put on a convincing case with brainwashing experts. Coupled with a few people on the jury that weren't following the case in the media or a few O.J. jury psychos and reasonable doubt. The defense will paint this as two cult members who led astray a young girl into their beliefs so no real harm was done and there could be some nut on the jury who would believe it.
To: Pan_Yans Wife
I don't know how it was done. I was friends with the mother (and my young son with one of the younger boys), and didn't know really any other family members. They took the children so I was never able to really talk to anyone on a personal basis to find out how the case was managed. All my info I got from the newspaper, and we all know how accurate they are. But I think the state must have agreed to a lesser plea in order to spare the kids somehow due to the families wishes. It was terrible all around.
This was in a well to do area. I was in their house many times. Everytime I think of that house I shudder. They say she ran from room to room trying to get away, and the scene was horrendous. I can't imagine how those kids were traumatized.
To: I still care
May God bless those poor little children.
To: Motherbear; Itzlzha
Sick, buddy, sick. And sick it is.
185
posted on
03/18/2003 9:43:47 PM PST
by
RecentConvert
(Let's control immigration before immigration controls us.)
To: Pan_Yans Wife
Doesn't she have to testify, if the defense calls her as a material witness?I think that the defense can call victims to the stand only if the prosecuters have already entered the victim's testimony into evidence. Perhaps some knowledgeable legal-eagle can correct this view.
According to Fox News' Carol McKinley, the family does not want her to testify. But here's the rub--Yokum, of the prosecution, told the family that he may well require Elizabeth's testimony to get the maximum penalty for the pair of perps.
Not clear if, when the Prosecution specifically demands Elizabeth's testimony, the family can then refuse.
Of course, if that testimony does get into evidence, Elizabeth will be rendered totally vulnerable to the Defense's examination within the bounds allowed by the Judge.
And, God forbid, Brian Davis,according to McKinley is today absolutely insisting on defending himself. So the young girl would have to face those insane, glittering eyes again.
186
posted on
03/18/2003 9:45:28 PM PST
by
henbane
To: ewing
The problem with charging him & her with just the kidnapping charge is the possibility that it could later be overturned on a technicality if he appealed. Stranger things have happened and there are no guarantees in the court system that he'll stay behind bars for the rest of his life. I've always been of the belief that you should charge a perp with as many violations as you can in the beginning, hoping that at least the majority of them will stick.
What is a life sentence in Utah? Is it life without the possibility of parole or is there an inderminate sentencing system there? I ask because if he's sentenced to 25-to-life, he can still be paroled somewhere down the road.
To: ewing
I hate to be an I told you so, but I predicted this the first day that they were arrested. The Smarts think that this will not only protect Elizabeth, but also the Mormon church. I initially agreed with this action, but I have rethought it and now think that it would be better for Elizabeth to face up to what happened and the fact that she was a victim of a crime, not a willing partner.
188
posted on
03/18/2003 9:47:52 PM PST
by
Eva
To: nicmarlo
I have the impression that sexual assult charges were leaked out to the press.
Excluding any sexual charges and icluding any other federal charges, can't the two mutants be put away for life?
If yes, why are they pressing sexual charges unless someone leaked?
189
posted on
03/18/2003 9:47:54 PM PST
by
RecentConvert
(Let's control immigration before immigration controls us.)
To: RnMomof7
***Can you see how a man saying he was a prophet from God , and that god had personally told him to take her as one of his wives may ring a bell for an LDS child?***
Burr, the weather is getting chilly!
To: DainBramage
"This might possibly be the first wise move I've seen them make."
What if the parents are holding back her testifying at a trial, in order to sell the rights to her story for a book and/or movie down the road? Maybe they don't want the story told at the trial because it's market value will go down if she does? I'm just playing devil's advocate...no need to flame.
To: Theophilus
Sometimes truth has a specific smell...that makes the echo very loud...
To: demnomo
You're right, demnomo. I know this personally.
To: mombonn
As long as the other charges put these two perverts away for the rest of their days, I can understand why the Smarts would do this. I just mentioned this in my post above.
If federal charges together with all the others except the assault charges would have been enough to put the two brutes away for the rest of their, why press for the sexual charges? Maybe somebody leaked to the press?
194
posted on
03/18/2003 9:52:26 PM PST
by
RecentConvert
(Let's control immigration before immigration controls us.)
To: Itzlzha
What vile assumptions!
To: ml/nj
So I guess you're against prosecuting any case against anyone who rapes a child? After all, that child victim might have to testifyOne BIG difference is that in most cases, the minor child is NOT IDENTIFIED so as to not be subjected to the intrusion of the media.
This poor girl is known by most people in the US at this point. If she and her family don't want those details made public, I believe the prosecutor should go along with that. There is enough on these two folks to put them away for LIFE. There 's no need to humiliate this poor girl; she has to live the rest of her life with everyone knowing some of the story, we don't need to know EVERYTHING!
196
posted on
03/18/2003 9:53:55 PM PST
by
SuziQ
To: RecentConvert
I believe that Utah has a very young consent age..could be that they would have a hard time making the case that she did not consent so they did not charge that ...
I find the lack of physical evidence at the scene (her bedroom) overwhelming..
To: mass55th
I've always been of the belief that you should charge a perp with as many violations as you can in the beginning, hoping that at least the majority of them will stick. Wrong. The best thing to do is to try them on the most serious charge and hold back on the lesser -non-included offenses. If you charge everything and get the wrong jury you lose everything because they can't be tried twice for the same crime. Here you can charge them with agravatted kidnapping and if that fails then you charge them wih rape and sexual assault. The aggravated kidnapping charge will put them behind bars for life. If that fails then you can always charge them with the lesser offenses and keep them in jail as long as possible.
If it is a lesser "included" offense, in other words, if the lesser offense is an element of the greater offense then you must charge them with everything from the get go.
Does this make sense?
To: henbane
The prosecution can subpoena Elizabeth, if necessary, to compell her to testify. That wouldn't be a nice process, though... treating her as a hostile witness? OUCH! I don't know. Her family and their lawyer may have to allow her to testify, openly. Otherwise, Mitchell will only go after her even harder, because he will have access to all of the State's case. YUCK!
To: drstevej
I thought they were called "flaming"... not icing!? Just kidding.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 361-366 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson