Elizabeth Smart testimony today

[Pheidippides]

The parents spoke at length about this. Their first thought was to avoid the pub but as rumors and stories swirled, they realized that they needed to control the story themselves. They did the TV movie and then the parents wrote a book. I think Father Smart's brother wrote a book, too...the one that was working for the Deseret News. I think, not sure.

I think they did a pretty good job to avoid the appearance of exploitation. E-Smart became active in political legislation and, as we saw in the clip of Nancy DisGrace (just made that up...is it original?), they also went out of their way to use her fame to promote causes, not to promote herself, the book, or the incident.

That being said, she was probably paid a decent sum for the movie rights. And you know...good for her. She deserves every cent and has carried herself well. If the money buys her a measure of peace and comfort in other areas of her present or future life, then have at it.

She has carried herself very well and by all accounts appears to be as resilient as can be. A great story of survival (I specifically mentioned the booze bit to SHW and we thought it was a genius idea). No doubt she has and probably will always have struggles of one sort or another that are private and latent, and I wish her well in confronting them.

[TheBYUGuy]

I feel pity for this detective, I can't imagine it's been easy for him: (from today's testimony)

Detective is on the stand now. More is coming, but here's what he's (Richey) said so far:

Cook: As a member of that taskforce, did you investigate leads into the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart.

Richey: Yes, countless leads.

Cook: How about a specific one. Do you remember a request to go to the Salt Lake City library?

Richey: Yes, I received a lead form, documented on a specific form that describes the information. That was given to me and the information on that lead and it indicated that there was a person who he thought was Elizabeth Smart at the Salt Lake City library.

Cook: Was there any particular feature listed as being similar or identical?

Richey: No, in the lead the only thing it said was that he recognized her. Yes, she wore a robe and her head was in a veil and her eyes were all that could be seen, and I had information she was with others dressed similarly.

Cook: How long were you able to talk to the two women before the man arrived.

Richey: I actually spoke with them for maybe 45 seconds to a minute. Not a long time. ... I was making no progress. When the male approached, he was approaching briskly, like there was a problem. I knew that he ... I don’t see how he could have recognized me as a police detective.

Cook: What did you do to ID yourself?

Richey: I stood up as he approached, I showed him my badge and identification card. I ID’d myself as a Salt Lake City police detective.

Cook: Did his approach shift your focus away from the woman and onto him?

Richey: Yes.

Cook: Once you showed the badge, did his demeanor change?

Richey: No. His demeanor did not change at all.

Cook: Did you tell your purpose?

Richey: Investigate the abduction of Elizabeth Smart.

Cook: Did he react to the name of Elizabeth Smart.

Richey: No, not at all.

Cook: Did you ask if you could see under the young lady’s veil?

Richey: I told him it was important to me to investigate thoroughly so we could substantiate that the complaint was unfounded. He responded by telling me that the girl, her veil could not be taken off because of their religious beliefs and refused to allow me to ask to remove the veil or remove the veil.

Cook: Did you ask to (inaudible) himself?

Richey: Not sure at that point or not. I had a discussion with him and did ask if I could interview both of the ladies outside of his presence.

Cook: He responded how?

Richey: His response was that his religious beliefs were such that women were not allowed to show their faces in public or to utter even one word in a public place.

Cook: When you got the information about the veil, not to lift the veil, did you offer any accommodation?

Richey: Yes. There were some study rooms that were very private. I asked him in order to rule her out as Elizabeth Smart I would need to see her face. The private rooms right next to us, (I asked if they could) come into one of those rooms and determine whether it Elizabeth Smart.

Cook: How was his response?

Richey: He was absolutely adamant that not take place. Religious edict said that she not remove the veil and that there would be religious consequences. I didn’t have the right to remove the veil.

Cook: What did he say when he told you there would be consequences?

Richey: His exact words were edict, and that prevented her to remove the veil. His mannerisms and his services. This is a serious thing you shouldn’t go and remove the veil in public. He made it very clear that it was a serious problem if she did remove her veil in public.

[MartyFunkhouser]

That is unreal.

"I thought you would want to speak out to other victims". Nancy Grace is a POS.

The fact that she kept her job after that is pathetic. One of the most disgusting interviews that I have seen on television.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Detective is on the stand now. More is coming, but here's what he's (Richey) said so far:

Man. I can't imagine the guilt and regret this detective must live with. Could have saved her from seven months of hell.

[TheBYUGuy]

Man. I can't imagine the guilt and regret this detective must live with. Could have saved her from seven months of hell.

Richey tried to turn up the heat, but Mitchell remained cool under pressure:

Cook: After this conversation how would you describe your demeanor toward the man?

Richey: When I entered the library, based on the information I had, somebody recognized Elizabeth Smart based on looking at her eyes only. I thought that was a long shot. But we do and we did investigate every lead very thoroughly, so— I’m sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Cook: I’m sorry. Let’s start over. You introduced yourself. You said you want to talk to this young lady. How would you say you’ve been treating this man?

Richey: Because of the lack of information. The lack of solid information. I don’t and for a couple other reasons I can explain, it didn’t occur to me that this was Elizabeth Smart. So initially I had a polite conversation with this gentleman. I explained my purpose, how we can quickly resolve the complaint. I made accommodations for how that could take place. And I hit a roadblock with every single issue that I confronted him with. My interest there is he was showing no nervousness. Now with 26 years of law enforcement, I’ve noticed that if you put pressure as a police officer onto somebody typically you’ll notice some manifestation of nervousness. I was interested to see if I pushed the issue if he would show any of those manifestations. So I became more forceful with him. I said “look this is not a run of the mill investigation, this is an extremely serious crime.” I said, I could not just walk out of the library not knowing whether the complaint was founded or unfounded. I told him it was his responsibly to allow me to conduct my investigation. I simply upped the pressure one notch at a time and I got the exact same matter of fact response from him that this was not going to happen. Her veil was not going to be removed.

Cook: You mention that applying pressure can expose nervousness.

Richey: Yes.

Cook: Can it bring about inconsistencies?

Richey: I think its the nervousness that would do that, not the pressure. But if somebody becomes nervous, their mind starts going 20 different directions. They sometimes become inconsistent in their statements. As an investigator I let those build up typically then I’ve got something to go on.

Cook: Did that happen with this individual?

Richey: In this case not at all. In fact I continued to increase the pressure and he remained calm, assertive and you know very much the same throughout the confrontation. And when I would ask a question in two or three or four different ways he would still be very consistent about his response, that it (taking off the veil) simply was not going to happen.

Cook: Detective, did he ever give you a name of a religion that he belonged to?

Richey: Not that I recall.

Cook: Did you get left with an impression that he belonged to a particular religion?

Richey: My impression was that he belonged to a religion or a cult that I had never heard of.

Cook: How long did you spend talking to this man?

Richey: With the man, I spent 15 minutes maybe. The entire encounter was approximately 30 minutes.

Cook: Going back to this man. During this whole time you were talking with him. How was he expressing himself?

Richey: He was expressing himself very articulate, very mater of factly. He wasn’t stumbling his words. He wasn’t. He expressed no sings of nervousness. Then he was very direct and straight forward to me.

[UtahDan]

What are the chances that this story gets made into a movie? What's Richard Dutcher doing these days? He could both act and direct.

[YOUTUBE]faLrk1Kyr6k[/YOUTUBE]

[TheBYUGuy]

Again, I'm not on the jury, but from where I sit, the defendant's plea/argument of insanity is not looking like it will hold much weight based on the testimonies so far.

The defense is trying argue insanity based on all of Mitchell's religious quirks and delusions, but in this trial the evidence is that he feigned religiosity when he was in private with his wife and Smart. Otherwise he was just very manipulative and acted normal in public.

[il Padrino Ute]

From those responses given to the investigator, it sure sounds like Mitchell knew what he was doing. If anyone is dumb enough to think that the claim of mental incompetency is a sham, they just need to read the testimony given by Richey.

[il Padrino Ute]

Again, I'm not on the jury, but from where I sit, the defendant's plea/argument of insanity is not looking like it will hold much weight based on the testimonies so far.

The defense is trying argue insanity based on all of Mitchell's religious quirks and delusions, but in this trial the evidence is that he feigned religiosity when he was in private with his wife and Smart. Otherwise he was just very manipulative and acted normal in public.

I'm a hack.

[TheBYUGuy]

More from Detective Richey:

Cook: Did you make any headway to look under the young woman’s veil?

Richey: no I did everything I could to get him to let me see her without the veil. I made accommodations that I thought were very reasonable, but he was very ungiving even though I asked him time after time after time.

Cook: Did you feel you had the right to legally remove it?

Richey: No.

Cook: As a police officer, you have to have respect for civil rights, for the right to practice religion?

Richey: Yes.

Cook: Did the statements about the young women factor in your decision not to remove her veil.

Richey: Yes, it did.

Cook: Were there any red flags that he was mentally ill?

Richey: I did not see any indications of mental illness. He struck me as a man with religious convictions.

[SoonerCoug]

What I want to know is if Jesus is going to be held accountable for drinking wine.

[Commando]

What I want to know is if Jesus is going to be held accountable for drinking wine.

Surely He knew what He was doing. Good point.

[Commando]

I know we feel for Ms. Smart and the terrible situation she was in, and I'm certainly not going to condemn her for anything, but to play devil's advocate what happened to free agency? If Ms. Smart voluntarily did something, why would she not be held accountable for it? We condemn others in bad situations for the voluntary decisions they make too. Why does Ms. Smart get a free pass?

I know--complete bullshit, right? Ask that pantywaist GBH why he saw fit to tell her that she is innocent in the Lord's eyes.

[falafel]

Brian David Mitchell was found guilty this morning.

Mitchell was convicted of interstate kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor to engage in sexual activity for allegedly holding Smart captive for nine months, including near-daily rapes and a trip to California and back. He faces up to life in prison when he is sentenced on May 25.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...arzee.html.csp

[TheBYUGuy]

Brian David Mitchell was found guilty this morning.



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...arzee.html.csp

They say nothing of sentencing. Does that come later?