Child bride testifies against polygamist 'prophet'

[stefan]

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/law/09/14/jeffs.trial.ap/art.jeffs13.jpg

ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) -- A former follower of a polygamous sect leader claims she was acting to preserve her eternal salvation when she obeyed his command and married her cousin at age 14.

Now 21, the woman was married in a 2001 religious ceremony to her 19-year-old cousin, then followed the counsel of Warren Jeffs to submit to her husband "mind, body and soul."

Jeffs, 51, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, went on trial Thursday on two counts of rape as an accomplice for using his church authority to coerce the marriage.

The bride was the first witness in the trial and was expected to return to the stand Friday.

On Thursday, she testified that Jeffs has long been an authority figure in her life. In 2001, he was a high-ranking church counselor and had been the girl's teacher and principal at an FLDS-run school, teaching children principles of the faith.

In 2002, Jeffs became church president, or "prophet," succeeding his father. Video Watch the case against Warren Jeffs

[stefan]

Child bride says she never cried 'rape'

ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) -- A young woman who said she was forced to enter an arranged marriage at age 14 testified Monday that she never complained to her mother or sisters that she was being raped.

"I never told anyone," the woman, now 21, said during cross-examination at the trial of polygamous-sect leader Warren Jeffs.

Jeffs, president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is charged with two counts of rape as an accomplice.

Prosecutors say he used his influence to push the girl into a ceremonial marriage with a 19-year-old cousin in 2001 and force her to have sex.

Last week the woman testified that she sobbed through the wedding and had to be coaxed by Jeffs and her mother when asked to say "I do." She hid in a bathroom after the ceremony at a Nevada motel.

Defense attorney Tara Isaacson challenged her earlier testimony and her statements to police in 2006.

The woman said Jeffs never specifically spoke to her about having sex because the FLDS faithful didn't use that word. She acknowledged her mother had a "great deal of influence" on her to go ahead with the marriage ceremony.

The woman has been the only witness through nearly three days of trial. She recalled last week how she avoided sex for weeks but could no longer deny her husband when he said it was "time for you to be a wife and do your duty."

Wanting to die, she said she subsequently swallowed two bottles of over-the-counter pain reliever.

"He was my priesthood head and husband. He was my patriarch," she said of her cousin. "And I was risking my spiritual salvation by questioning my husband and not becoming one with him."

The woman said she sought an FLDS divorce, known as a release, from Jeffs but was denied.

She finally left her three-year marriage and the FLDS church in 2004 after becoming pregnant with another man's child. CNN and The Associated Press generally do not name people alleging sexual abuse.

Jeffs, 51, has been president of the FLDS church since 2002. Followers see him as a prophet who communicates with God and holds dominion over their salvation. Ex-church members say he reigns with an iron fist, demanding perfect obedience from followers. Follow the rise of the 'Prophet'

[rockgremlin]

Rape is so hard to prove in a court of law. Especially where there are no signs of physical violence, and the testimony is all "my word against his."

I don't think this is gonna go anywhere -- unless the law is looking to make an example of Jeffs.

I'd like to hear Scott's take on this.

[Iceaxe]

19 y/o men should not be screwing 14 y/o girls..... thats my take. :cool2:

[rockgremlin]

19 y/o men should not be screwing 14 y/o girls..... thats my take. :cool2:

True, and I agree, but what's Utah's AOC (age of consent)? Even then, it's still her word against his.

[stefan]

19 y/o men should not be screwing 14 y/o girls..... thats my take. :cool2:

True, and I agree, but what's Utah's AOC (age of consent)? Even then, it's still her word against his.

except for the fact that you have this whole religious thang ... the strong expectations and the endless use of strong rhetoric she was subject to her entire life. some wouldn't have a problem calling it brainwashing.

[stefan]

Polygamous leader guilty of being accomplice to rape of unwilling teen bride
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

ST. GEORGE - Eight jurors who found polygamous sect leader Warren S. Jeffs guilty on two felony charges Tuesday said the verdict came down to two things: the teen bride's age and the law.

"We all had the opinion he was pretty much her only ticket for getting out of the marriage," said Gerald Munk, 36, a St. George City maintenance worker.

Added Ben Coulter, 26: "He ultimately held all the keys to say, 'You don't have to be in this marriage and there won't be any consequences.' "

Jeffs stood with his attorneys as the verdict was read; he later sat, his face as impassive as it had been throughout the six-day trial, blinking hard.

Asked by 5th District Judge James L. Shumate if he wanted to have a presentencing report, Jeffs said: "I will do what my lawyers recommend."

The two charges of rape as an accomplice are punishable by five years to life in prison. Shumate set a sentencing date of Nov. 20. Jeffs will remain incarcerated at the Purgatory Correctional Facility in Hurricane until he is sentenced.

Jeffs' defense team hurried from the courthouse after the verdict. "Of course I'm disappointed," attorney Walter F. Bugden said as he moved through a mob of reporters.

Jeffs, 51, is the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which has about 6,000 members in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Other sect members are in Texas, Colorado, Nevada, South Dakota and British Columbia.

He has led the group since September 2002, when he succeeded his late father, Rulon T. Jeffs. The sect believes marriages are arranged by God through the prophet and that sex should occur only for procreation.

Fifteen members of Jeffs' faith left the courthouse after the verdict as they had for weeks: Silently slipping away while chased by cameras.

The rape charges were based on a marriage Jeffs conducted in 2001 between Elissa Wall, then 14, and Allen Steed, her 19-year-old cousin.

Jurors who spoke to media in the courtroom after the verdict said they found Wall more credible than Steed - particularly regarding when and how their first sexual encounter occurred.

The jurors also said they found the prosecution's second closing argument persuasive. Still, three jurors entered deliberations ready to vote not guilty.

They eventually joined the others in reachinga "guilty decision" on the first count before splitting again on the second one. It was a heated debate, they said.

"There were a couple times I thought fists were going to be thrown," said Diedre Shaw, 32, a St. George homemaker. A marker was tossed across the room at one point.

Shaw, who was initially in the "not guilty" camp, said the second count was difficult for her because of its nonspecific time frame and the fact Wall admitted she "sugared up" her relationship by agreeing to sexual intimacy during this period.

Prosecutors said the first count of rape occurred between the April 23, 2001, marriage and May 12, 2001. They listed the second count as occurring between May 13, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2003.

The panel left the courthouse Monday night - after 13 hours of deliberations over two days - still deadlocked, they said.

Juror Andrea Harold was excused Tuesday morning after Shaw raised questions about an answer she gave on her jury questionnaire. Harold was replaced by alternate Rachel Karimi, and deliberations continued.

The jurors said Karimi, a 28-year-old homemaker, "walked into a fight." She provided a "fresh look," they said, which helped the panel reach consensus about three hours later. The verdict was reached shortly after 1 p.m. Tuesday.

"We started at the beginning and listened to her feelings about the case," said David Finch, a 64-year-old Ivins retiree who served as jury foreman. "She brought up points we hadn't thought about."


Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap had argued Jeffs, then-first counselor in the faith, was the "mouthpiece of God" and had ignored Wall's objections to the marriage.

Later, when she asked to be freed from the marriage and said her husband was "doing things to me I don't understand,'' Jeffs sent her back to him. He threatened loss of heavenly salvation as a consequence for disobedience, Belnap said.

"He placed Elissa Wall in a situation where she felt she had no choice," he said.

After the verdict, jurors referred repeatedly to Jeffs as the prophet - a post actually held by his father at the time - who assigned marriages and could undo them.

"When things went wrong, he wasn't there to help her," said Gerald "Lynn" Maxwell, 40, a draftsman who lives in La Verkin.

Wall's civil lawsuit, which the defense had described as a motive for bringing the rape allegation, was easily set aside by the jury. So was the lack of a charge against Steed or involvement of others in Wall's marriage.

"I was leaning more toward blaming Allen," said Shaw, adding that other jurors kept reminding her he wasn't on trial.

It was the laws that Jeffs had broken that mattered, Maxwell said. And the jury instructions, which they read "over and over," focused them on those laws.

Jeffs' attorneys - Bugden and Tara Isaacson of Salt Lake City and Richard Wright of Las Vegas - characterized the case as a political campaign against an unpopular religion with their client as a scapegoat.

"Over time, the story evolved from a bad marriage to a story of rape," Bugden said, adding that it changed only after Wall contacted a civil attorney. He argued the faith focuses on faith, not force.

And while Wall's stepfather, mother and sisters encouraged her marriage, only Jeffs had been singled out for blame, he said.

"The idea that this is all laid at the feet of Warren Jeffs is simply not fair," Bugden said in his closing statement. "I don't care what the religion is, no one thought this was going to lead to rape.

''They thought in time they were going to rise in love."

But jurors rejected the claim that the case was about religious persecution. "I don't think it was about that but I think it played a part in it," said juror Heather Newkirk, 32, a massage therapist.

She later said serving as a juror in the case was "very interesting" and made her "appreciate her husband a lot. . . . I'm just happy to have the freedoms and choices that I do.'

The jury found Wall's sister, Rebecca Musser, a decisive witness. "Rebecca Musser, that woman made eye contact and she shot fire," Newkirk said.


One expert said he was "mildly surprised" by the outcome. Daniel Medwed, a University of Utah law professor, said he did not think the charges were a perfect fit with the facts of the case.

"Feeling he had done something wrong is a little bit of a stretch to saying he was an accomplice to rape," Medwed said.

He said Jeffs is likely in for a long stay in prison and would be "quite surprised if Jeffs ever got out."

After the verdict, Belnap, who was assisted in the case by lead prosecutor Ryan Shaum and Craig Barlow, an assistant attorney general, thanked the jury for carefully considering the evidence.

He described Wall's courage in coming forward as a "highlight of his entire life," calling her a ''pioneer.'' Wall, he said, "withstood attacks on her credibility and reputation with honor and dignity."

Belnap hinted there may be other prosecutions in the future.

Arizona and federal authorities, who have cases pending against Jeffs, will likely wait to see what sentence Shumate hands down before deciding how to handle their prosecutions.

[stefan]

Polygamous leader guilty of being accomplice to rape of unwilling teen bride
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

ST. GEORGE - Eight jurors who found polygamous sect leader Warren S. Jeffs guilty on two felony charges Tuesday said the verdict came down to two things: the teen bride's age and the law.

"We all had the opinion he was pretty much her only ticket for getting out of the marriage," said Gerald Munk, 36, a St. George City maintenance worker.

Added Ben Coulter, 26: "He ultimately held all the keys to say, 'You don't have to be in this marriage and there won't be any consequences.' "

Jeffs stood with his attorneys as the verdict was read; he later sat, his face as impassive as it had been throughout the six-day trial, blinking hard.

Asked by 5th District Judge James L. Shumate if he wanted to have a presentencing report, Jeffs said: "I will do what my lawyers recommend."

The two charges of rape as an accomplice are punishable by five years to life in prison. Shumate set a sentencing date of Nov. 20. Jeffs will remain incarcerated at the Purgatory Correctional Facility in Hurricane until he is sentenced.

Jeffs' defense team hurried from the courthouse after the verdict. "Of course I'm disappointed," attorney Walter F. Bugden said as he moved through a mob of reporters.

Jeffs, 51, is the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which has about 6,000 members in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Other sect members are in Texas, Colorado, Nevada, South Dakota and British Columbia.

He has led the group since September 2002, when he succeeded his late father, Rulon T. Jeffs. The sect believes marriages are arranged by God through the prophet and that sex should occur only for procreation.

Fifteen members of Jeffs' faith left the courthouse after the verdict as they had for weeks: Silently slipping away while chased by cameras.

The rape charges were based on a marriage Jeffs conducted in 2001 between Elissa Wall, then 14, and Allen Steed, her 19-year-old cousin.

Jurors who spoke to media in the courtroom after the verdict said they found Wall more credible than Steed - particularly regarding when and how their first sexual encounter occurred.

The jurors also said they found the prosecution's second closing argument persuasive. Still, three jurors entered deliberations ready to vote not guilty.

They eventually joined the others in reachinga "guilty decision" on the first count before splitting again on the second one. It was a heated debate, they said.

"There were a couple times I thought fists were going to be thrown," said Diedre Shaw, 32, a St. George homemaker. A marker was tossed across the room at one point.

Shaw, who was initially in the "not guilty" camp, said the second count was difficult for her because of its nonspecific time frame and the fact Wall admitted she "sugared up" her relationship by agreeing to sexual intimacy during this period.

Prosecutors said the first count of rape occurred between the April 23, 2001, marriage and May 12, 2001. They listed the second count as occurring between May 13, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2003.

The panel left the courthouse Monday night - after 13 hours of deliberations over two days - still deadlocked, they said.

Juror Andrea Harold was excused Tuesday morning after Shaw raised questions about an answer she gave on her jury questionnaire. Harold was replaced by alternate Rachel Karimi, and deliberations continued.

The jurors said Karimi, a 28-year-old homemaker, "walked into a fight." She provided a "fresh look," they said, which helped the panel reach consensus about three hours later. The verdict was reached shortly after 1 p.m. Tuesday.

"We started at the beginning and listened to her feelings about the case," said David Finch, a 64-year-old Ivins retiree who served as jury foreman. "She brought up points we hadn't thought about."


Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap had argued Jeffs, then-first counselor in the faith, was the "mouthpiece of God" and had ignored Wall's objections to the marriage.

Later, when she asked to be freed from the marriage and said her husband was "doing things to me I don't understand,'' Jeffs sent her back to him. He threatened loss of heavenly salvation as a consequence for disobedience, Belnap said.

"He placed Elissa Wall in a situation where she felt she had no choice," he said.

After the verdict, jurors referred repeatedly to Jeffs as the prophet - a post actually held by his father at the time - who assigned marriages and could undo them.

"When things went wrong, he wasn't there to help her," said Gerald "Lynn" Maxwell, 40, a draftsman who lives in La Verkin.

Wall's civil lawsuit, which the defense had described as a motive for bringing the rape allegation, was easily set aside by the jury. So was the lack of a charge against Steed or involvement of others in Wall's marriage.

"I was leaning more toward blaming Allen," said Shaw, adding that other jurors kept reminding her he wasn't on trial.

It was the laws that Jeffs had broken that mattered, Maxwell said. And the jury instructions, which they read "over and over," focused them on those laws.

Jeffs' attorneys - Bugden and Tara Isaacson of Salt Lake City and Richard Wright of Las Vegas - characterized the case as a political campaign against an unpopular religion with their client as a scapegoat.

"Over time, the story evolved from a bad marriage to a story of rape," Bugden said, adding that it changed only after Wall contacted a civil attorney. He argued the faith focuses on faith, not force.

And while Wall's stepfather, mother and sisters encouraged her marriage, only Jeffs had been singled out for blame, he said.

"The idea that this is all laid at the feet of Warren Jeffs is simply not fair," Bugden said in his closing statement. "I don't care what the religion is, no one thought this was going to lead to rape.

''They thought in time they were going to rise in love."

But jurors rejected the claim that the case was about religious persecution. "I don't think it was about that but I think it played a part in it," said juror Heather Newkirk, 32, a massage therapist.

She later said serving as a juror in the case was "very interesting" and made her "appreciate her husband a lot. . . . I'm just happy to have the freedoms and choices that I do.'

The jury found Wall's sister, Rebecca Musser, a decisive witness. "Rebecca Musser, that woman made eye contact and she shot fire," Newkirk said.


One expert said he was "mildly surprised" by the outcome. Daniel Medwed, a University of Utah law professor, said he did not think the charges were a perfect fit with the facts of the case.

"Feeling he had done something wrong is a little bit of a stretch to saying he was an accomplice to rape," Medwed said.

He said Jeffs is likely in for a long stay in prison and would be "quite surprised if Jeffs ever got out."

After the verdict, Belnap, who was assisted in the case by lead prosecutor Ryan Shaum and Craig Barlow, an assistant attorney general, thanked the jury for carefully considering the evidence.

He described Wall's courage in coming forward as a "highlight of his entire life," calling her a ''pioneer.'' Wall, he said, "withstood attacks on her credibility and reputation with honor and dignity."

Belnap hinted there may be other prosecutions in the future.

Arizona and federal authorities, who have cases pending against Jeffs, will likely wait to see what sentence Shumate hands down before deciding how to handle their prosecutions.

[stefan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfMsapXTVDQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esltrib%2Ecom%2Fci%5F700146 4

[rockgremlin]

BOOYA!! That's what you get!! HAHA!!

[Iceaxe]

I'm thinkin' Warren is about to get a whole new understanding of rape.

[asdf]

So.. when does the husband who preformed the rape go on trial? What about the the friends and family that arranged the marriage? Do they have a trial date set yet?
I think they went after the wrong person here.

[Udink]

The husband was charged today:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1872505

They were probably waiting to see if they could successfully convict Jeffs before going after the husband. It sounds like the woman's mother was also an accomplice in the marriage arrangement, I wonder if she'll ever see charges against her.

[asdf]

sweet!

[CarpeyBiggs]

The whole thing is puzzling. I really don't get what Jeff's did here. Smells like a witch hunt to me.

[rockgremlin]

The whole thing is puzzling. I really don't get what Jeff's did here. Smells like a witch hunt to me.

Go look up 'statutory rape' in the dictionary.

[Iceaxe]

After Steed took the stand, Washington County investigators felt they had what they needed to make that charge.

When Steed took the stand I thought if this guy doesn't already have a deal worked out he's a dumbass.....

I can't believe he was that stupid. I figured he must have been granted immunity or something because I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to get up on the stand and tell everyone "Yeah, I was screwing the little 14 y/o girl".

Just curious..... does anyone know if this was a legal wedding? Or was this like most plig weddings where they jump over the broom stick and Uncle Warren says they are married....

:popcorn:

[Jaxx]

does anyone know if this was a legal wedding? Or was this like most plig weddings where they jump over the broom stick and Uncle Warren says they are married....

I think that was his first wife so could be legal, but can you legally get married in Utah at 14?

[rockgremlin]

does anyone know if this was a legal wedding? Or was this like most plig weddings where they jump over the broom stick and Uncle Warren says they are married....

I think that was his first wife so could be legal, but can you legally get married in Utah at 14?

The legal AOC (Age of Consent) in Utah is 16 for girls, and 18 for guys. The ONLY state in the U.S. where a female may marry at the age of 14 is South Carolina...(which should explain a lot :lol8: )

[CarpeyBiggs]

Go look up 'statutory rape' in the dictionary.

Jeff's didn't rape anyone. The husband did.

Is Jeffs cazy? Probably. Is he guilty of being an "accomplice to rape?" Not in my eyes.

[CarpeyBiggs]

The legal AOC (Age of Consent) in Utah is 16 for girls, and 18 for guys. The ONLY state in the U.S. where a female may marry at the age of 14 is South Carolina...(which should explain a lot :lol8: )

You sure about that? I've never heard that before. Link?

[Iceaxe]

In Utah its rape if the girl is 14. Here is the link
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Utah

Jeffs was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of "rape as an accomplice".... two different things.

And I'll still stick with my original thoughts..... men should not be screwing little 14 y/o girls. Anyone who is or is contributing should be held accountable. All I'm hearing from Crapey is that he thinks its OK to screw children.

:cool2:

[CarpeyBiggs]

And I'll still stick with my original thoughts..... men should not be screwing little 14 y/o girls. Anyone who is or is contributing should be held accountable. All I'm hearing from Carpey is that he thinks its OK to screw children.


That's because you hear what you want to hear. I'm saying, Jeffs shouldn't be convicted of being guilty as an ACCOMPLICE unless the husband (who actually did the deed) is found guilty himself. How can someone be an accomplice to a crime that hasn't even been proven? The evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Not even close. If Jeffs is guilty, why isn't JD4's mother guilty as well? JD4's testimony placed more blame on her than it did on Jeffs. Or did you not even read her testimony?

Besides, you are the guy who is always on here posting about screwing anything that walks, usually women who I guarantee are half your age. Who's supporting child rape, really?

[sparker1]

I'm glad they got him for "rape accomplice", but some form of "slavery" charge may have been appropriate.

[CarpeyBiggs]

For Ice, from the DNews:

"My mother was the one who finally showed me that I had no choice,

[Sombeech]

I thought originally they were even trying him for SODOMY of an underage MALE. :ne_nau:



Or was this like most plig weddings where they jump over the broom stick and Uncle Warren says they are married....

ooh, broomsticks? Now we're getting kinky....

[tanya]

And I'll still stick with my original thoughts..... men should not be screwing little 14 y/o girls. Anyone who is or is contributing should be held accountable.


Just glanced at this thread... and it made me wonder.... How do you guys feel about a Mother, who knows that some adult male is having sex with her under age daughter, and allows it. Usually to keep the man around ....being a boyfriend, husband or such?

Is this similar to what Jeffs did? Should she be guilty too?

[tanya]

Besides, you are the guy who is always on here posting about screwing anything that walks, usually women who I guarantee are half your age. Who's supporting child rape, really?


Ouch! .... He he..... And what is your reply to this one Ice man.

:lol8:

[stefan]

No question, I think what Jeffs did is wrong, but is he guilty of accomplice to rape? The answer is simply "no"

why is the answer no. i don't think it is at all straightforward to come to that conclusion. he is the prophet and it is due to him that 14-year old girls are getting married off so frequently. the frequency of such marriages (and consequently the expected sex associated with such marriages) increased once he became prophet. he is most certainly responsible for it.

[Iceaxe]

Yeah.... you can keep trying to defend it but I ain't buyin' it..... It's all child abuse pure and simple. I also hope they nail mom for the Jeffs rape.


Nevada Police Hunt for man in Explicit Sex Tape w/ Child

I hope they find this guy and torture him for the rest of his natural life.

Here's his photo

http://www.foxnews.com/images/309715/0_62_092507_man.jpg

Picture of the missing girl

http://www.foxnews.com/images/309715/0_61_092507_girl.jpg

[quote]

LAS VEGAS

[CarpeyBiggs]

why is the answer no.

I only say no because of the facts in this case that were presented. Like I said, is he a criminal? Probably. Is he an accomplice on rape charges? Probably not, at least not based on the evidence presented.

Remember, it has to be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Of course, based on what I've seen and read from the trial (which is not exhaustive, by any means, I wasn't there) I don't see any evidence that suggests anything actually happened. Sure, there is testimony, but that's it. The prosecution has to PROVE the rape happened. This is her word against his.

Even if they did prove that, they have to PROVE that Jeffs influence could be considered coercion. That is difficult to prove, in my opinion. Does just marrying them and saying "multiply and replenish" mean he coerced them? Or did he actually tell the man to force his wife to have sex with him? And if he did say that, where does that become advice, and when does it become coercion? Lots of gray area in there, methinks. There were many unanswered questions, which is exactly why everyone was so stumped as to what the verdict would be. No one was calling this an open and shut case, because it certainly wasn't.

Anyways, back to the testimonies, the husbands testimony and JD4's testimony are completely at odds. The most striking testimony from JD4 actually implied it was her mother who forced her, not Jeffs. Why isn't the mother on trial as well? Perhaps she'll be tried later too? It all boiled down to her testimony against his, and at some points she actually said that she willingly had sex with him later in the relationship. Just hard to say there is actually proof.

Ironically, it wasn't until after the trial that the husband had charges pressed against him for rape. Wouldn't it seem like the person who actually performed the rape should be tried before we find out who the people are that were accomplices? Kinda strange, if you ask me. And now, the husband will be tried as well, based on testimony he gave. I mean, the guy didn't even refuse to testify, based on the grounds that he may incriminate himself. Doesn't sound like a guy who was trying to hide anything. Contrast that with a girl who got pregnant by another man while they were still married... Granted, that isn't "proof" either, it's just my opinion.

I was also unimpressed with the prosecuting team. The whole stunt with passing out pictures of the girl when she was 14 after the press was told they couldn't even name the girl, let alone distribute pictures of her, seems like they were grasping at straws, like they knew their case was weak.

What's more, the whole timeline of how she came to press charges was erratic. First it was a civil case, then it became a trial case, and yet charges were never filed against the husband..

Not to mention, I just don't really like Mark Shurtleff, and it seems like this has been his number one priority for some time now.

So there's my opinion. Notice, I have no facts either. Just my feelings on the matter. Flame away.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Yeah.... you can keep trying to defend it but I ain't buyin' it..... It's all child abuse pure and simple. I also hope they nail mom for the Jeffs rape.

Ice, I'm not defending it. Reread my statements if you need to... I am not condoning any of his actions in any way. I'm simply saying the charges, in this case, just don't fit. I think they should've worked a more solid case against the guy. Jeffs is probably a criminal. But "probably" shouldn't be enough to convict someone.

[stefan]

Remember, it has to be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Of course, based on what I've seen and read from the trial (which is not exhaustive, by any means, I wasn't there) I don't see any evidence that suggests anything actually happened. Sure, there is testimony, but that's it. The prosecution has to PROVE the rape happened. This is her word against his.

Even if they did prove that, they have to PROVE that Jeffs influence could be considered coercion. That is difficult to prove, in my opinion. Does just marrying them and saying "multiply and replenish" mean he coerced them? Or did he actually tell the man to force his wife to have sex with him? And if he did say that, where does that become advice, and when does it become coercion?

coercion = persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by force or by threat.

using religious rhetoric and directives for salvation i believe could easily be considered coercion.

[CarpeyBiggs]

coercion = persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by force or by threat.

using religious rhetoric and directives for salvation i believe could easily be considered coercion.

I could see that, but you still have to prove the rape happened. Generally though, accomplice to rape means someone who actually physically participated in the crime, i.e. holding them down or something. There isn't much precedent of someone being prosecuted as an accomplice by using religious rhetoric as a form of coercion. Not saying it isn't valid, just saying it is new territory.

That said, the rape still has to be proven first though, and I can't see how the actual rapist wasn't even charged yet, but the accomplice is convicted. Doesn't that seem strange?

[rockgremlin]

Here's something to ponder on:

In Utah, sex with a girl younger than 16 is statutory rape. So, do you REALLY believe that she was married at the age of 14, but NEVER had sex with her husband until two years later?

Bullshit. Of course they had sex before she was 16, and that's statutory -- grey area? What grey area?

Jeffs had arranged many underage marriages like this all in the name of religion. How could you NOT see that as an accomplice?

[CarpeyBiggs]

Here's something to ponder on:

In Utah, sex with a girl younger than 16 is statutory rape. So, do you REALLY believe that she was married at the age of 14, but NEVER had sex with her husband until two years later?

Bullshit. Of course they had sex before she was 16, and that's statutory -- grey area? What grey area?

Jeffs had arranged many underage marriages like this all in the name of religion. How could you NOT see that as an accomplice?

Hey man, no need to cuss at me.

So if you believe that constitutes a rape, then do you believe that the influence he exerted is enough to convict him of his charges? Again, he told them to multiply and replenish the earth. Did he really continue to personally coerce that marriage? From everything I can tell, it was her mother applying the most pressure, not Jeffs. The only thing he did PERSONALLY is not allow them to be divorced. I think it is a stretch to say he was an accomplice. But hey, that's just me. Don't cuss me out for it. Under the general understanding of what an "accomplice to rape" is, I'd say there isn't much previous history of anyone being convicted using similar rhetoric.

Along this same vein, would you also agree that the parents, specifically the mother, should be tried as well? And lastly, do you think the man is guilty of rape as well, the husband? Is there any grey area for the husband? Or should he be in jail too?

[rockgremlin]

No cussing here. I haven't unloaded any f-bombs yet. :lol8:


Ya, I definitely think the mother should be tried as an accomplice. No doubt. And the husband should also be tried for statutory -- no question.

[CarpeyBiggs]

So by your definition, I will concede that she was in fact raped, by the definition in Utah law. I've always understood that the age of consent was 14 or older in Utah. Looks like I was wrong on that, considering he was more than three years older, that makes the age of 14 a moot point. So, whether it was consensual or not is irrelevant.

So the rape happened, now, you have to determine what kind of influence Jeffs personally had on the husband. Did Steed and Jeffs meet often? Did they ever meet personally? Have they ever met outside of the wedding? Or was this something that was more of a cultural expectation and unspoken, or did Jeffs specifically tell this couple they needed to start breeding immediately? What were the threats made? What was the extent of his coercion, etc... The list goes on.

Again, judging by the girl's testimony, the influence of Jeffs was minimal on her and her husband. Her mother was the much more significant influence. Perhaps Jeffs was a strong influence on the mother though? Difficult questions to answer in the court of law, because there are very few legal precedents to draw from, and the definitions are subjective. Hence, the gray area.

Also, why was he tried on two counts of the same charges, when there was only one witness? Did I miss something there?

And more gray area... Do you really think the husband should be tried? From what it sounds like you are saying, he should be considered a victim too. Basically, Jeffs coerced him into doing it. He was doing what he thought was right. I think he lacked the intent to commit the crime. I mean heck, the guy could've easily exercised his rights and not testified, and not implicated himself, but he didn't seem to care about that. It appears he wanted to tell the truth. The marriage and resulting consummation wasn't something he chose to do, but was commanded to do. Shouldn't he be given some leniency?

[rockgremlin]

The husband will probably get some leniency for the reasons you have listed. It would've been much worse for him had he fled.

As much as Jeffs, et al. are guilty, I do agree with you that they are trying to establish a precedent here (witch hunt). They've been trying to find a way to prosecute polygamy here in Utah for decades, and this was the perfect opportunity. Will be interesting to see what impact this has if any on the polygamous communities throughout the state.

[tanya]

I hope they eliminate the lifesyle..... I have known many of the young girls from there that would give just about anything to get out of that life style. Hilldale - Colorado City is right by me. Also the baby issue... the inbreeding... it's horrible. You should see some of these babies... their developement is quite slow.

Let's hope that a better lifestyle for children and women of that community comes out of all this. Leaders need to pay... after all .... life in Pligville is pretty much dictated to the young people by the ones with the power. That being Jeff's (for one)... he needs to be hunted, removed and it needs to be done in the most public way possible!

[Iceaxe]

I think they should've worked a more solid case against the guy. Jeffs is probably a criminal. But "probably" shouldn't be enough to convict someone.

It appears to me they worked a very solid case against Jeffs. He was convicted of both charges by a jury of his peers. I don't see how you can do better then that.

And I do have some experience with polygamy and its a very sad deal. If this was consenting adults in their 20's I'd have no problem with it..... but its not.... The young women in polygamy are borne into a form of slavery and do not get to experience the same freedoms you and I do. Something as simple as arguing Jeffs innocents on the internet is something a young female born into polygamy would never be given the choice to experience.

:cool2:

[Scott Card]

Just quickly looked at the thread and it appears that there is a need for a couple of points of clarification as to the law- Statutory rape is "A person commits rape of a child when the person has sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 14." U.C.A. 76-5-402.1 (1) Rape on the other hand is "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent. (2)This section applies whether or not the actor is married to the victim.

As to the issue of the marriage, if the two were first cousins, it is an "incestuous marriage"= illegal. A 14 year old CANNOT marry in Utah. It is illegal too. Also, as to "consent". The general rule is that minors can't contract, can't consent to most things. There are exceptions.

Personal opinion, the prosecution was brilliant in going after Jeffs first and the "husband" second. I hope the above (and quickly drafted) legal stuff helps the discussion.

[Bo_Beck]

http://tinyurl.com/yrfjhz

He's been charged.

[CarpeyBiggs]

As to the issue of the marriage, if the two were first cousins, it is an "incestuous marriage"= illegal. A 14 year old CANNOT marry in Utah. It is illegal too. Also, as to "consent". The general rule is that minors can't contract, can't consent to most things. There are exceptions.

Personal opinion, the prosecution was brilliant in going after Jeffs first and the "husband" second. I hope the above (and quickly drafted) legal stuff helps the discussion.

Thanks for the clarification Scott. As for the marriage, they weren't "legally" married, I don't think. It wasn't recognized by the state, was it? If the state had to approve a marriage license, why didn't they stop it at the time? I think this was a cultural marriage.

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

[CarpeyBiggs]

And I do have some experience with polygamy and its a very sad deal.

What, you didn't like your child brides? :ne_nau:

[Scott Card]

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.

Bugden read him his Miranda rights in the courtroom. Steeds said he would waive his rights, because he wanted the truth to come out. Like I said, he must've known what was coming.

[Scott Card]

Thanks for that tidbit. As you can guess, I really didn't follow the case very closely. I have a few too many of my own to worry about right now. And, I'm trying to get out of town tonight. :mrgreen:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Out of town? You act like you've got somewhere to go...

[Scott Card]

Out of town? You act like you've got somewhere to go...I'm not leaving the state and as we all know, there is really nothing to do in Utah so no biggie just gettin' away for a couple of days of leisure fun, you know, hiking with w/ ropes.(I'm so excited :mrgreen: )

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: The marriage was a spiritual marriage, which means it was recognized by the FLDS but not by the state of Utah or anyone else with legal jurisdiction.

[tanya]

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.


~*~swoon~*~

A real lawyer ... I LIKE it! :hail2thechief: