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

FOX News ^ | March 18, 2003 | Shepard Smith

[ewing]

just the update

[Freedom2specul8]

I didn't see this posted anywhere..don't know if you want to start a new thread or not.

---

Fanatical polygamist Brian David Mitchell, 49, and his wife, Wanda Barzee, 57, are accused of taking Elizabeth from her bedroom at knifepoint, marching her four miles to a mountain campsite in her pajamas and subjecting her to sexual abuse, possibly including rape. "At the campsite Barzee attempted to remove Elizabeth Smart's pajamas," prosecutors said in the charging documents. "When she resisted, Barzee threatened to have Mitchell forcibly remove Elizabeth Smart's clothing." The documents say Mitchell used a cable to restrain Smart from escaping and sexually assaulted her on other occasions.

yahoo news

[PatriotGames]

(sigh) Just as long as they don't drag Elvis into it, I suppose.

What a coincidence you should mention that! Elvis was a co-conspirator.

[ml/nj]

his attorney would have the right to ask Elizabeth ANY QUESTION HE WANTED

Actually this is not true. The accused only has the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The prosecutor may or may not call the victim, and the defense can only ask questions which might undermine the testimony so elicited.

ML/NJ

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You're right.

[Freedom2specul8]

and this one...another FR thread.

---

However, when she was on her way back up from San Diego just in Utah, just south of -- I'm sorry, I can't give you specifics on it, but just south -- they had an interview yesterday with a gentleman who was in an audio, had kind of an audio store. And she actually, when she had been separated from them, she very quietly whispered, "I'm Elizabeth Smart."

[nicmarlo]

Prosecutors on Tuesday filed aggravated kidnapping and sexual assault charges against fanatical polygamist Brian David Mitchell and his wife Wanda Barzee for last year's abduction of 15-year-old Elizabeth Smart. The duo was also charged with aggravated burglary, Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom announced

---

     76-5-302.   Aggravated kidnapping.
     (1) An actor commits aggravated kidnapping if the actor, in the course of committing unlawful detention or kidnapping:
     (a) possesses, uses, or threatens to use a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601; or
     (b) acts with intent:
     (i) to hold the victim for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage, or to compel a third person to engage in particular conduct or to forbear from engaging in particular conduct;
     (ii) to facilitate the commission, attempted commission, or flight after commission or attempted commission of a felony;
     (iii) to hinder or delay the discovery of or reporting of a felony;
     (iv) to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another;
     (v) to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function; or
     (vi) to commit a sexual offense as described in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses.
     (2) As used in this section, "in the course of committing unlawful detention or kidnapping" means in the course of committing, attempting to commit, or in the immediate flight after the attempt or commission of a violation of:
     (a) Section 76-5-301, kidnapping; or
     (b) Section 76-5-304, unlawful detention.
     (3) Aggravated kidnapping is a first degree felony punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term of not less than 6, 10, or 15 years and which may be for life. Imprisonment is mandatory in accordance with Section 76-3-406.

Amended by Chapter 301, 2001 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_05039.ZIP 2,539 Bytes

---

Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

Last revised: Monday, January 13, 2003

---

     76-6-203.   Aggravated burglary.
     (1) A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if in attempting, committing, or fleeing from a burglary the actor or another participant in the crime:
     (a) causes bodily injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime;
     (b) uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous weapon against any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
     (c) possesses or attempts to use any explosive or dangerous weapon.
     (2) Aggravated burglary is a first degree felony.
     (3) As used in this section, "dangerous weapon" has the same definition as under Section 76-1-601.

Amended by Chapter 170, 1989 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_07015.ZIP 1,948 Bytes

---

Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

Last revised: Monday, January 13, 2003

[yooper]

"Her parents are odd,..."

Now there's the understatement of the month.

"However I don't blame any parent for protecting their child from further abuse."

As well they should. They were certainly negligent in protecting their child initially...

[Delta 21]

Being a memmber of a family that has lived thru similar circumstances I cant tell you from experience, Keeping any aspect of what happened hidden and not dealing with it is the absolute worst thing that this family can do.

I am still so very proud of my niece. From the day she took the stand and saw the man that molested her convicted (even tho he was released on appeal and murdered another little girl less than 2 years later) to the day she stood less than 20 feet away and watched the life drain out of that monster, to the two times a week she goes to prayer meetings and once for therapy. She is the victor because of how she handled it.

Sorry to be so morbid. I wish I could have been there with her when the son-of-a bitch was put to death.

We deal with her monsters everyday, and she has held nothing back from day one. Hats off to my brother in raising her to be courageous and wanting to do the right thing.

She needs to lay all the cards on the table. I know she didnt ask for this horrible thing to happen to her, but she cant hide from it, and her parents cant hide her from it either. The only way she has a prayer of getting over this is to do EVERYTHING in her power to put this guy away for as long as possible or a needle in his arm!

[Barset]

Would you please cite your sources for the information in your reply #39, particularly that in paragraph three. Thank you.

Barset's niece

[Nita Nuprez]

What a coincidence you should mention that! Elvis was a co-conspirator.

Bite your tongue.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Even the FBI spokesperson after they were called in spoke publicly about how difficult it had been to speak to the girl because the parents were not making her as available as the FBI had wanted.

Source?

[CharacterCounts]

Actually this is not true. The accused only has the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The prosecutor may or may not call the victim, and the defense can only ask questions which might undermine the testimony so elicited.

Better take alook at the 6th Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Defendant has the right to confront (examine) all witness against him - even if the prosecution does not want to call them.

[nicmarlo]

I said: his attorney would have the right to ask Elizabeth ANY QUESTION HE WANTED, and have the right for ANSWERS WITH SPECIFICITY

You said: his attorney would have the right to ask Elizabeth ANY QUESTION HE WANTED . . . Actually this is not true.

Actually, it is. She would have to state, with specificity, EXACTLY what he did to her for her to CLAIM he committed aggravated sexual assaults upon her. She could not merely say "I had to have sex with him." She must specify EXACTLY what sex, what he put inside her, where it happened and how often.....did he watch other people put things inside her, did she like it. Did she want him to do it to her.

I'd say with the two other FELONY charges, there's absolutely no need for this, except for people like you who want to hear all about it.

[cherry]

I disagree.....she does not need to testify to put both of them away for life....if Wanda who" loves ES very, very much" testifies for the state....

there will be no dp in this case....and life on one or two charges is just as good as life for three charges.....

[yooper]

Cut Itz some slack here hole in one. I happen to agree with him, with no tinfoil hat. Think about it; the parents invite a transient into their HOME, not knowing anything about said transient. The girl turns up alive (thank God), and what does the father do? Does he demand the death penalty (which Emmanuel deserves)? No; he goes on TV and blames the politicians in DC, when it was he, and not the politicians, who allowed this bum into his home.

Why? Because as we all know, if this were conservative parents, the local social services administration (SS) would be on his ass. Just ask Michael Jackson. Instead, this girl's father drops clues at every turn to identify himself as a liberal.

Itz is right; something here doesn't pass the smell test, and it's this girls parents.

[CharacterCounts]

He has the right to cross examine her. He does not have the right to ask any question he wants, however. For example, he could not ask her if she had prior sexual contacts.

[Choose Ye This Day]

"this family did half the kidnappers job for him by conditioning the girl in a very fundamentalist view of mormonism"

It was only a matter of time before someone would actually give voice to the latent anti-Mormon sentiment lingering between the lines of this thread.

So, now her LDS religion is to blame, and her parents for teaching her those same beliefs? How so? And what is your definition of "very fundamentalist" Mormonism? And how on earth did any of this make Mitchell's perversion any easier to carry out?

Please explain. I'm dying to know.

[henbane]

It would be a travesty wouldn't it to allow that animal to question her,,I am sickened at the thought. And to think it could happen in a court in this country galls me. I think a parent with any guts would solve that problem if it looked like it would happen.

This is a possibility--and a nightmarish one. Remember that crazy who shot about 9 or 10 people on a NY subway some years ago? He was his allowed to be own lawyer and the victims who lived had to sit in a witness chair and be questioned by the looney.

But rest assured, Elizabeth will never ever testify. Without doubt Wanda Barzee--who witnessed absolutely everything--will testify in exquisite detail against Brian David until her eyeballs fall out to avoid spending the rest of her life in a Utah slammer.

Unfortunately, she'll probably be out in 8-10 as part of the deal.

Let's hope the media vampires don't get jail-house interviews with either of these child molesters for those details that seem to titillate some of the stranger members of John Q Public.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Check the index at the beginning of the "Official Elizabeth Smart Thread" posted by Admin Moderator a few days ago. I read ALL those articles when they were originally posted, and don't recall ANY complaints by LEO that they were not getting all the access to MK that they wanted, and plenty of indications that they were. As reported by a number of sources, MK was staying with her grandparents for a few weeks after the kidnapping, and the reasons given were both the need to keep her memory untainted by family and to keep her away from the stress of initial commotion at the house while LEOs were there virtually around the clock gathering evidence.

[RGSpincich]

If I were the Smarts I wouldn't file civil charges either. Glad to see they won't be wasting their time. The criminal charges, however, are brought by the people of Utah and they have the final say on whether a preditor goes unprosecuted for his crimes. The DA may or may not need Elizabeth to testify. Don't kid yourselves about having enough to keep them in jail forever without prosecuting the sexual assault charges. They will get out with plenty of life left to harm another little girl. Using multiple convictions, the judge can sentence them to consecutive sentences and assure that he/they won't harm anybody else.

The victims in sexual assault cases are helpless while under the control of the perpetrator. Participating in the conviction of the individuals goes a long way in the healing process. The victims regain control over that portion of their lives. She will never forget the ordeal, never. Elizabeth will relive it everyday with or without the prosecution. Dealing with the memories and getting a sense of control back is the only way in which she will become whole again.