According to a news item I heard on NPR this morning, jury selection will begin today for the trial of Brian David Mitchell in Salt Lake City for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart some 8 (if memory serves) years back. According to NPR's Howard Berks, the LDS church is allowing Elizabeth Smart to return home early from her mission in Paris to testify for the prosecution. The defense (no surprise) is planning to claim mental illness on the part of Brian Mitchell. Despite the request of the defense attorney, Judge Kimball (any relation to the late Spencer W.?) is keeping the trial in Salt Lake City, saying he is sure that an impartial jury can be found there.

On this matter, I suspect Mr. Kimball is probably right. I know of no other current homegrown religions in the U.S. that have a history of polygamy support, and Utah is probably the most likely state where one might find people who might be willing to support Mr. Mitchell's claims, given both the LDS church's past involvement in the practice and the continuing subculture of polygamy among certain sectors of the state's population.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 11:43AM by blindguy.

it will be painful to watch the trial of a kidnapper and raper of a minor and claims that "the Lord told me to take her as my wife", even though he had to break into her bedroom and force her under cover of darkness. Glad I'm not on the jury.

The insanity defense didn't work for Ron or Dan Lafferty when they killed their nephew and sister-in-law in the name of god. The prosecution argued successfully that a man's religious beliefs don't necessarily make him insane. They both got the death penalty. This is in Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven". Fascinating stuff.

I've read that book 3 times. My 23 year old just read it and she was shocked.She's exmo.

They murdered their neice, not nephew, and only Ron received the death penalty. Dan is life with no parole.

You are correct. I couldn't remember if the baby was a boy or girl. And Dan was following orders from Ron, so Ron rec'd the stiffer penalty. I read it over 2 years ago. Sue me for lack of reading comprehension.

The point is, the courts just won't go as far as declaring a religious fanatic as being insane. Religious beliefs may be irrational, but people who are religious fanatics still have a grip on reality when it comes to knowing what day of the week it is, who is president, and how to function in their day-to-day lives.