FOX News -Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against MItchells

FOX News ^ | March 18, 2003 | Shepard Smith

[ewing]

just the update

[ewing]

I doubt Wandas marriage is legal based on the wacky nature of the couple.

Unless we are counting 'common law.' (7 years at the same address in some states?)

[ewing]

I have already heard that Wanda is helping the prosecution.

She must know that she is a goner in the state prision system general population and is pledging full cooperation for life sentence in Illinois or Colorado Federal Supermax.

The solitary confinement 23 hours a day does drive the prisioners insane, with no contact with anyone not even in the yard for the one hour of sunlight during the day..

[Alberta's Child]

I doubt Wandas marriage is legal based on the wacky nature of the couple.

If that's the case, then someone ought to change the headline . . .

"FOX News -- Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against Mitchells"

[Eva]

You're speaking of the LDS church, but we all know that there are still some Mormon groups that practice polygamy outside of the LDS church.

[HamiltonJay]

Aparently their devout Mormanism can't seperate pure in the eyes of God and defiled by the hand of man....

[demnomo]

Unless she has a change of heart, not to mention a change in her deep, dark soul, that Mitchell woman should rot in hell for aiding and abetting her husbands lust.

Can you believe the speculation of some FReepers? I can not. Yeah, right, according to them it is every Mormon families desire to have their beautiful young daughter become one of seven wives to an ugly, smelly-looking, job-less creep who has only seen her once or twice, abducts her by knifepoint, ties her up, rapes her and finally throws her into a hole covered by boards and dirt on her bizarre wedding night.

Then there are a few FReepers who do not suspect that scenario, but actually believe (even after the newly released details) that Elizabeth may be making all of this horrific stuff up and actually ran away willingly with this creep. They also speculate that she could have run away at any time, but did not because she loved it.

Did it ever once occur to these blame-the-Smart-family-and-Elizabeth that Elizabeth may have thought that her very survival depended on her obedience because she was fearful that Mitchell or his crazy first wife might punish (ie: torture or kill) her ON THE SPOT for her disobedience!!!

[P-Marlowe]

It happens all the time. In multiple or serial murder cases for instance it is usual and customary to charge the defandant with only one or two of the murders and hold off on prosecuting the other murders just in case there is a prosecution-caused mistrial or the jury aquits. If the jury aquits on the first trial, then they always charge them with one of the other murders that were not originally charged.

BTW the courts have no say in how the prosecution handles its cases. They cannot question the prosecution on why they didn't bring a charge in the fist place. They only try the charges that are brought before it.

The only time this can backfire is if the crime that is later prosecuted would be a lesser included offense; that is that the lesser included charge is a necessary element for the conviction of the crime that they were aquited from.

For instance if you charged a person with armed robbery, and they were aquitted, you could not later charge them with carrying a concealed weapon.

However if you charged someone with kidnapping and they were aquitted, you could still charge them with every crime that they committed after they kidnapped the person, including rape, assualt, battery, etc. Since those subsequent acts were not included in the elements of the offense of kidnapping, the prosecution can later charge them for those crimes without violating the double jeopardy clause.

That is why it is important that the prosecution try these people on the kidnapping charge first. The rape charges are not essential, but if they are aquitted on the kidnapping charge-- i.e., the jury buys their defense that the Smart girl ran away from home, then they could later bring charges for statutory or forcible rape, aggravated assault, etc.

So don't come down on the prosecution here. There is a method to this madness and they appear to be doing it right.

[demnomo]

The vast majority of Mormon (LDS) members do not practice polygamy. IF anyone has solid proof that the Smart family was a member of a excommunicated, splinter Mormon group that practices polygamy, please let me know.

I am getting tired of folks who lump all Mormons into these splinter polygamy groups. Personally, I disagree with Mormon doctrine. But I do know from my studies of various religions that the main Mormon church (of which I believe that the Smart family are members of) does not condone or practice polygamy in this day and age. The SLC LDS church banned polygamy in the 1890s, I believe. Historians claim this was done to gain Utah statehood.

[FreeTally]

I've been wondering: If Elizabeth Smart had "married" this man voluntarily, would she be practicing polygamy? Wouldn't she be excommunicated for that? And what about her family? Could they all be excommunicated as well, especially if they knew about it?

[Utah Girl]

During the same new conference where the charges were read by DA David Yocum, he said that Wanda is welcome to give as much information, but she is part and parcel of what happened to Elizabeth. Wanda Barzee helped in the commission of the crimes, and instigated some of the crimes. Yocum didn't sound like there would be too much of a chance of any type of a plea bargain. Of course, one never knows what could happen.

[Utah Girl]

I don't know why the media keeps reporting them as Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. They were legally married in 1986, no report of any divorce.

[Utah Girl]

They call themselves Fundamentalist Mormons, but those groups that practice polygamy have NO ties with the LDS church. If members of the LDS church practice polygamy or support polygamy, they are excommunicated immediately.

[homeschool mama]

The usual suspects are complete and utter fools.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I hope she doesn't get to plea bargin. And, I hope after Utah is done sentencing them, that the Federal case will go forward, immediately. They should feel the brunt of all applicable laws and justice.

[Utah Girl]

Utah law is that the age of 16 is the age of consent (with the permission of the parents.) IF the Smarts gave her to a polygamist man to marry, then yes they would be excommunicated. The LDS church excommunicates those who practice polygamy or those who support polygamy or have any sympathies with polygamy.

[Eva]

That was my point. I don't think that most people understand that the LDS is not the only Mormon sect and therefore any discussion of polygamy and the history of Mormonism reflects badly on the LDS in the eyes of the general public.

[Utah Girl]

Me too, me too.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

There might be two reasons. She may not have taken his name? A long shot. And, they may be trying to get their full names out to the public, so that people who may be victims of these two, will come forward. The same logic is used when people who are wanted, or commit extremely horrific crimes, are known by their FULL name, to distiguish them from the innocent. LEE HARVEY OSWALD... instead of Lee Oswald that lives in Topeka, and has been a pillar of the community.

[Utah Girl]

OK. Sometimes its hard to tell over the computer. Thanks.

[FreeTally]

Thanks, that's what I figured.