Quantcast
Utah

Defense witness in Brian David Mitchell competency case goes on offensive

She believed in 2004 that he wasn't capable of aiding in his defense

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mitchell
    Dec. 10, 2009 12:09 p.m.

    has fooled another doctor. Put Mitchell in a cell and then the lawyers and doctors can argue about what label they put over the door, as in Crazy or Not Crazy. Mitchell should never be set free and should not be rewarded for playing mind games with the system.

  • Slgs5
    Dec. 10, 2009 12:14 p.m.

    "DeMier believes Mitchell's delusional belief that he will only be in prison for two years if convicted and will then be freed by God so he can lead the people out of darkness".

    Sounds good to me. Put him jail, that is what he wants. Then sit back and wait, and see if God gets him out. Then wait, and wait, and wait some more. ........Still waiting,......Still waiting. Come on, no more trial, give the man what he wants.

  • DeMier
    Dec. 10, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    This DeMier guy should lose his license, he's lost all credibility. Either he's lying or he's been completely duped by Mitchell. Either way, he's incompetent as a psychologist.

  • SimonSays
    Dec. 10, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    Send this DeMier to jail too. I am sick and tired of this crap - since when is it okay to do something so calculated, heinous and horrible and 8 years later for it still to be unresolved? We have become a very sick society. Where are the days when wrong was punished immediately? Lock this sicko up and all the "academics" who believe that it is okay to do wrong. Is he crazy - absolutely - crazy to think that he does not understand what he has done. Who cares if he doesn't understand what rotting in jail is going to be like - he fully understood what he was planning and did.

  • Naruto
    Dec. 10, 2009 1:35 p.m.

    He was competent enough to commit kidnapping, rape, and a strew of other crimes, he was competent enough to evade the law for a year. I think he's more than competent to stand trial and then to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

  • Enough is Enough
    Dec. 10, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    We are spending far too much money on Mitchell. What we need is retroactive abortion and a 25 cent bullet to put him out of his misery. I am fed up paying psychoanalysts hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to convince the court an individual is incompetent to stand trial. If somebody has the skill set to do horrific crimes, execute them and then let God sort it out. It is a total waste of taxpayer resources playing these senseless games.

  • Locke
    Dec. 10, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    Perhaps the law needs a "guilty but crazy" verdict that still punishes the guilty while taking mental problems into account.

  • Amazing
    Dec. 10, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    Amazing how many trained Psychologists/Psychiatrists frequent these boards. Even more amazing is how many of them have obviously spent more clinical hours watching and observing Mitchell than the ones testifying at these hearings. Really though, is it that easy for you all to get in there and spend some good one on one time with him. I should schedule myself some visitation with him too, its obviously a very popular hobby.

    This must be the case... otherwise its just a bunch of unqualified individuals who only know about Mitchell what little they've seen/heard in the news, and even then filtering out any opinions that don't match their own, preconceived opinions.

    But this can't be the case. Certainly you must all be qualified to comment on Mitchell's sanity as you have the necessary credentials and access to the man himself.

  • DeMier
    Dec. 10, 2009 2:01 p.m.

    Demier is a joke, and an insult to the profession, and above all he is grossly overpaid. Mitchell had the mental resources to plan the kidnapping, seek out victims, to evade authorities, and to manipulate others around him. That requires intelligence, reason, and anticipation of what his foes may be doing so that he can avoid being caught.

    We are entirely too kind to people like this man. Mitchell needs to be sentenced to hard labor for the rest of his life and he should have to work for the rest of his life to make real restitution to his victims. Sitting in a mental institution while he laughs at the justice system, is just enabling this pervert and validating his sense of impunity.

    Demier needs to refund the state's money based on his incompetence. Mitchells sanity is much like the question of porn that was put before one of our respected judges years ago. He said essentially that he could not precisely define porn/indecient material, but he knew it when he saw it. We have seen the sanity with which Mitchell has committed his crimes, and we know a manipulating criminal when we see one.

  • Nan B.W.
    Dec. 10, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    An old expression says there is a fool born everyday. Demier needs to be given a job digging the moat around an institution for the "insane."

  • So Cal Reader
    Dec. 10, 2009 2:32 p.m.

    Freak! So, Mitchell wants to be a martyr and can't stand the thought of being found "dillusional"? Sounds pretty rational to me. What are we waiting for? Get the trial started and life-time sentence imposed. You Utah tax payers should then be all the more ready for his future prison "buddies" to make sure he's not with us any longer-- we'll even let Mitchell call it a "martyr" so he can reap his "reward" all the more sooner. Mitchell is laughing his way to the Utah tax payers' bank. Freak!

  • Opinion
    Dec. 10, 2009 2:50 p.m.

    Mitchell, we already had a Savior who saved the world. There can only be one. I'm sorry, but he has come already and it wasn't you. He didn't go around kidnapping people, or raping people, or lying to everyone around him. Perhaps someone should give him a Bible and allow him to read how a real "Savior" acts... he's obviously confused. As for everyone else, feel free to commit any crime you wish, as you will never have to pay for your actions, at least in this life. Just act like a freak and sing church songs in the courtroom and they'll deem you crazy and you'll be free to go. What are we teaching people??? I'm glad I'm not a judge because I obviously would suck at it. I would make an example out of the "insane" people. You commit a crime, you pay for it. None of this crazy business. It's just a way to allow anyone to do whatever they want without having to face justice.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    I smell something stinky.

  • slicker
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:07 p.m.

    This is all a joke the prosecution tells there Dr. hey we want this guy found competent can you do that? He says sure how much can I make. Defense team Dr shops to get there testimony and who ever has the better actors win. Who cares if he is nuts let him rot in jail and get on with it. Crazy people can sit in jail as easy as normal person. Me personally its just a game for him

  • crazy
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:18 p.m.

    OK- so does anyone out there think that Mitchell isn't crazy? So what, stick him in a cell where he belongs and stop wasting our time/money!

  • Chachi
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:22 p.m.

    We can all form opinions, but when we read one news story and think we have a better grasp of psychological evaluation than the professional, perhaps we need to realize that we're not experts, but people sitting at home and spouting off opinions on the Internet that we have no professional training for and for which we'll never be publicly accountable.

    And calling for DeMier's license? Now you're just making yourself ridiculous.

  • RE: Amazing
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    Because of your comment, I do not believe you understand the point. Too many times when a crime is committed, and the perpetrator cries "mental illness", or their lawyer does it for them, it creates a situation of declaring that they should not be punished, or punished less because of it. What the point is, whether Mitchell is competent or not, he has committed grave transgressions for which society wants him held responsible. These actions were committed against someone else... and that is what always puzzles me... is the person they have transgressed against... it is as if this person is completely forgotten... the nightmares they had to go through, the anguish they felt, or the loss of their own life.

    I think that those on this board and others like it are interested in justice for her/them, and protection for us all. Regardless of status of mental health, as a decent society we should at least be given the right to that. And that right would supersede the rights of any "mentally ill" criminal.

    Before you disregard anything I have said... I have been a witness to and a recipient of criminal "mentally ill" activities.

  • Last in His Class
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    I'm betting this so-called doctor graduated last in his class. Either that or he was absent on the day they taught everything. Talk about delusional...

  • CDS
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    "If he believes he's going to be miraculously delivered from prison by God in two years time, that's not a rational thought process," DeMier said during a competency hearing for Mitchell in U.S. District Court.

    Kidnapping and raping a child is not a rational thought process either, yet he was competent enough to commit that crime.

  • So tired
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:40 p.m.

    Of Mitchell and his sneaky underhanded ways of making the system believe he is nuts. Ted Bundy was nuts, Jack the Ripper was nuts, or my personal favorite Charles Manson and his merry band. You'd have to be a little delusional to hurt people this way but doesn't mean that you cannot be found guilty. They have a perfect account in the testimony of Elizabeth. She lived it, lived to tell about it, and we still have no closure for her. That is just sick and wrong.

  • My analysis
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:50 p.m.

    I believe Mitchell is incompetent -- incompetent to be a member of the human race.

  • Dave M
    Dec. 10, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    Could Mr. Mitchell EVER be trusted again to roam free? No. Competent or not, he needs to be locked away where he cannot be a threat to anyone ever again. Period.

    Our justice system must be able to recognize that some persons, competency aside, can NEVER again be allowed access to the general population. The risks are just too great.

  • Doctor Jon
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    Your tax dollars at work.Why don't they just put him in a rubber room and forget all this nonsence.

  • of many, one
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:11 p.m.

    The Doc said that the accused was not competent to stand trial. Well, okay. My question is, did he know that what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally? If so, who cares if he's competent to stand trial? Let's have the trial without him! Not competent? No problem! Stay in your cell, doing whatever you're sufficiently competent to do. We'll have a trial, convict you, and let you stay where you are for the remainder of your natural life! Oh, and my personal recommendation is that you be castrated as well. Let the punnishment fit the crime.

  • Elizabeth
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    Elizabeth Smart should be able to decide his fate. She was the victim. She knows how "competent" he really is. She seems to have a pure heart, and I'm sure she would sentence him to something he deserved, rather than go with what she wanted to see happen to him. Let her decide.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    Micthell belongs in a Turkish prison.

  • So. Cal Reader
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Blah, blah, blah. Seems like a forensic psychologist who just might be a little insecure of her abilities. Egads! She was "raised in Utah"? Might there be a little anti-Utah "axe to grind"? Probably not because she's a "professional."

  • Pedro
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    "Mitchell asked staff members about the conversion rate of shekels to U.S. currency in order to pay Ed Smart for his daughter."

    This is all one big joke for Mitchell. He thinks he can get away with anything, and so far, he's right.

  • Chris
    Dec. 10, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    I agree with Anonymous 4:32 p.m. Mitchell knows exactly what he did and what he is doing. I wish this psychologist were as smart and clever as Mitchell is and perhaps she could have established a correct diagnosis.

  • Experts?
    Dec. 10, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    I don't feel that anyone in these forums is qualified to make a correct diagnosis of this man's mental state. Nor, without a jury of his peers does anyone have the right to recommend a punishment. Also, nobody should be saying "kill him." Such comments of physical violence should be met with charges of their own. However, I do agree that nothing should be drawn out forever like this, and our legal system needs serious examination of efficiency. Too many know-it-alls here.

  • To So. Cal Reader
    Dec. 10, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    To suggest that Dr. Jennifer Skeem is "insecure in her abilities", demeans the many institutions and legal professionals that have relied on her for years.

    Dr. Skeem is a member of the MacArthur Research Network on Mandated Community Treatment, and Centers for Psychology and Law and Evidence-Based Corrections. She trained in clinical psychology at the Universities of Utah and Pittsburgh (hardly an "anti-Utah axe to grind"). Dr. Skeem’s research is designed to inform clinical and legal decision-making about individuals with mental disorder.

    To help research inform policy and practice, she works closely with national and local agencies (e.g., Council of State Governments; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). Dr. Skeem has received several awards, including the Saleem Shah Award for Early Career Excellence from the American Psychological Association (Division 41) and the Distinguished Assistant Professor Award for Research from the Academic Senate of UCIrvine.

  • To 4:14 pm
    Dec. 10, 2009 5:56 p.m.

    A popular sense of justice and public demand for revenge might make it sound like a good idea to have victims judge the accused.

    My opinion is that the Founding Fathers had some good ideas when they established our system of justice with its guarantees of due process, a trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc., and that we shouldn't insouciantly throw the whole thing out the window.

  • Joe Moe
    Dec. 10, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    You have two independent psychiatrists (DeMier and Skeem) who disagree with the 500M psychiatrist brought in by prosecutors. What is DeMier and Skeem's motivation to mislead the court? It would be far easier to go along with the lynch-mob mentality.

    Everyone wants to see Mitchell held accountable, so everyone wants to believe he's competent for trial. Frankly, having had some training in psychology, I personally find DeMier and Skeem to be quite reasonable in their statements (I also found the other's statements reasonable at the time, but Skeem got her chance to speak her piece and answered well). But regardless of my personal beliefs, or anyone else's, there is obviously strong reason to believe Mitchell is incompetent. The court will probably find just that.

    And then what? It's as if people think he'll be out on the street. He'll be locked in a room for the rest of his life. Why is everyone so upended over WHERE he'll be locked up? He's not going to kidnap or rape again. The system will work fine. Relax a little.

  • To Joe Moe:
    Dec. 10, 2009 6:15 p.m.

    Very well said. Whether in a prison cell, or the nut house, Mitchell will never see the light of day.

  • Mark Terran
    Dec. 10, 2009 6:59 p.m.

    How telling that while most would recognize the stuffing of the ears as merely another denial mechanism on Mitchell's part, Skeem on the other hand apparently sees it as evidence of insanity.

    Mitchell is determined to resist truth and to instead revel in his grandiose, narcissistic, false reality. It is a matter of will - not one of disability, nor of schizophrenia. Again: it is not that Mitchell can't understand reality; it is that he won't. That is why he stuck the pieces of napkins in his ears: it was because people like Welner, Hagan, and Gardner were confronting him with reality, rationality, and truth.

    To "Amazing," and "Chachi": I do not have formal training in psychiatry or psychology. But I have dealt with pure evil at close range and so I do know something of what I am talking about. Also, like many of the readers here, I have a smattering of common sense, something DeMier and Skeem don't seem to have. Indeed this case will cause many to reconsider the value of "expert" opinion, the value of common sense, and the role of plain-old dishonesty in "delusional" behavior in most cases.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2009 8:29 p.m.

    "Dr. Skeem is a member of the MacArthur Research Network on Mandated Community Treatment, and Centers for Psychology and Law and Evidence-Based Corrections. She trained in clinical psychology at the Universities of Utah and Pittsburgh (hardly an "anti-Utah axe to grind"). Dr. Skeem’s research is designed to inform clinical and legal decision-making about individuals with mental disorder.

    To help research inform policy and practice, she works closely with national and local agencies (e.g., Council of State Governments; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). Dr. Skeem has received several awards, including the Saleem Shah Award for Early Career Excellence from the American Psychological Association (Division 41) and the Distinguished Assistant Professor Award for Research from the Academic Senate of UCIrvine."

    Blah, Blah, Blah!

    The irony is that the psychiatric communities bizarre conclusional analysis of what constitutes mental illness just proves that David Mitchell is more competent than those who are judging his competency.

  • Question to JoeMoe
    Dec. 10, 2009 8:42 p.m.

    Let's say Mitchell is declared incompetend. Can a judge order him to be confined in a mental hospital for life? I don't think so. He will be there as long as he remains delusional. But what if 10-15 years later, he decides to take his meds and voala! he's fine and free to leave the hospital and live the good life. Please somebody tell me, is there any chance that can happen? I believe it may or the prosecutors are just too crazy to spend $$ tax money to find him incompetent.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 10, 2009 9:18 p.m.

    Does Skeem mean to imply that her colaboration with the unethical defense team was unintentional? She is the one who used the term unethical to describe the defense team. Very interesting.

  • Joe Moe
    Dec. 10, 2009 10:45 p.m.

    @8:42

    You raise a good question, and I hope someone more knowledgeable than me confirms (or corrects) my upcoming answer. In the meantime, I'll tell you what I understand to be the process, but I cannot say I know for certain.

    Being incompetent to stand trial is not the same as being found innocent by reason of insanity. If in 10-15 years he becomes competent to stand trial, he will do so. If that doesn't happen, he stays institutionalized for life.

  • Ace
    Dec. 10, 2009 11:16 p.m.

    Joe Moe is correct. One can be not insane at the time of a crime and be unable to stand trial due to insanity. One can also be not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, but be perfectly sane later and able to stand trial. So far, the question of Mitchell's sanity at the time of his crime has not been raised (but you can bet it's coming). All that's being discussed at this time is whether at this moment he is competent to stand trial. If he's found competent, the prosecution will go forward. If not, he stays in the state mental hospital.

  • How Long?
    Dec. 10, 2009 11:34 p.m.

    So what is the maximum time Mitchell could be incarcerated for kidnapping, rape and transporting across State lines? Will Mitchell receive credit for the time he has been held while waiting his competency hearings? There have been people like Mitchell who have also murdered and they did not spend life.

    I do think he is a danger to himself and to society and has proven that. To declare him insane and order him into lock down would keep him locked up. But this can't last forever .

    What really bothers me as psych nurse is that the DSM keeps being re-written and changed. The criteria for Schizophrenia changes. This is often re-written with the marketing of new pharmacology. He would NOT be found schizophrenic using an older DSM manual.

    Sad that the victims of crimes who are totally innocent and their families have to suffer for life.

    The courts need to stop feeding his delusions and correct his acting out behavior and keep re-orienting him until he (hopefully) gets it.

    I don't like the idea of him in State Mental Hospital. If I had a family member
    in, I would not want Mitchell near them.

  • re:Joe Moe | 5:59 p.m. Dec. 10,
    Dec. 11, 2009 12:05 a.m.

    "You have two independent psychiatrists (DeMier and Skeem) who disagree with the 500M psychiatrist brought in by prosecutors. What is DeMier and Skeem's motivation to mislead the court?"

    Uh, they are getting paid, too, aren't they? Paid to tell the defense what it wants to hear. Do you think the defense just drew their names out of a hat and asked them to do it out of the goodness of their heart? They found pshrinks they new would tell them what they wanted to hear, and if fact, when they didn't hear what they wanted they said, "No, honey, that isn't what we want to hear, try again."

  • Mitchell knows.
    Dec. 11, 2009 4:44 a.m.

    What does his religious beliefs have to do with his crime? Mitchell is competent enough to manipulate and that takes organized thought and every thing else these attorneys are bickering about is just religious beliefs.

    Everyone is schizoid to some degree but that doesn't make them incompetent to know right from wrong. His actions to kidnap were not accidental, it was planned and with purpose.

    Just get the trial going and forget the psychology of man, that will never be understood or proven. In my way of understanding psychologist is they are more insecure and confused than Mitchell. So what they have to say cannot be proven or is fact and nothing more than a mind game.

  • Can't admit being a victim so be
    Dec. 11, 2009 5:32 a.m.

    RE:of many, one

    "The Doc said that the accused was not competent to stand trial. Well, okay. My question is, did he know that what he was doing was wrong, both morally and legally?"

    No he didn't know it was morally wrong because he's psychotic. In fact he probably believed that it was morally right to do what he did.

    "If so, who cares if he's competent to stand trial? Let's have the trial without him! Not competent?"

    Everyone has the right to defend themselves and when they aren't able to do so because they can't admit to themselves that it was wrong for them to do what they did because if they do they will have to admit they were the victims of rape themselves.

    While these psychologists won't state for certainty that he was molested as a child the overwhelming evidence is that a person with his mental illness is the victim of extreme sexual abuse by someone who was close to them and they become narcissistic and psychotic to avoid that reality.

    Their choice is between believing they are a Savior like their abuser or admit being a victim

  • Rip off
    Dec. 11, 2009 6:35 a.m.

    Wow, the tax payers spend a million dollars so we can have one expert tell us he's competent and another tell us he isn't.
    In the end a judge wikll decide. Can't we get that done without spending millions?

  • We screwed up
    Dec. 11, 2009 7:16 a.m.

    Our legal system is the problem. Not only in this case, but in numerous others. It provides for chaos to the benefit of those who profit from it.

    We the people allow this to happen!!!! Why take it out on those in the field of psychology whose job is to determine who is sane or insane

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 11, 2009 7:34 a.m.

    When they decided not to medicate him they said he had some rare illness that could not be treated by medication and so should not be forced to take a treatment that was not likely to work. Paranoid Schizophrenia is treatable with meds. Medicate him, make him competent and then get on with it.

  • AZ
    Dec. 11, 2009 7:57 a.m.

    AS for me I had ENOUGH! Lock him up. This is becoming a JOKE in the court system. Only issue is no one is laughing out loud.

  • Fix the system
    Dec. 11, 2009 8:04 a.m.

    Trials have been held without the defendent being present. In the case of the mentally ill, why can't the trial continue with their mind not being there. What is important is that it is established that the crime was committed by the defendent. Since when are the laws of the land only applicable to the sane? The laws of the land are to keep society safe. What is important is to make sure people like Mitchell are locked up forever so they can never harm anyone again, whether it is at the State Hospital or in prison. It really shouldn't matter if he is mentally compentant or not.

  • Joe Moe
    Dec. 11, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    @12:05

    Fair point. I honestly don't know how Skeem and DeMier were selected (although I do know how Welner was selected). So my assumption about the "independent" nature of the former is perhaps misplaced. Still, two came to that conclusion and stood by it in court, versus the one. There's clearly some reason to wonder about Mitchell's competence to stand trial. That's all I'm saying. I am not the psychologist, nor the judge.

    Whichever way it goes, Mitchell should and will be put away for the rest of his life. Let us get closure and move on.

  • Ethics 101
    Dec. 11, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    Maybe Dr. Skeem wasn't a "hired gun", but she certainly turned a blind eye to many indicators that show Mitchell is competent to stand trial. In fact, on Monday it was brought forth in court that Dr. Skeem had not disclosed a large portion of her own notes from 2004 that directly addressed Mitchell's competency to stand trial. Five years later, Mitchell still hasn't faced justice.

    It's like hiding crucial DNA evidence!

    Hired gun or not, Dr. Skeem must be aware that she violated her own code of ethics as a forensic psychologist through her role in the case.

  • Dave
    Dec. 11, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    OK, OK, so I am also right in line of this guy being banished to the moon, but give the man a cigar for asking about the exchange rate for shekels. NO one thought that part was funny??

    That has to be the line of the year!

    That was funny, I don't care who you are.

  • St George
    Dec. 11, 2009 9:20 a.m.

    Way don't we just tell the defense lawyers that they no more pay. This case will be decided in no times. Cut off the money to the lawyers!!!!

  • idiots
    Dec. 11, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    the majority of comments on these articles are ridiculous. the expert witnesses who assert that Mitchell is not-competent to stand trial are not saying that what he did was ok or that he should be released. They are doing their job and assessing a man's ability to participate in his defense. Either way he's getting locked up for the duration.

    just because someone can manipulate does not make them competent. justice must be served and part of that means that you only try a defendent if they can rationally participate in their legal defense. if they can't and the charges are this serious than you lock 'em up until they can participate.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 11, 2009 10:16 a.m.

    Seems like she cares more about being right than doing whats right...

  • Who's grossly overpaid????
    Dec. 11, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    Public records will reveal this information -- We do know that the prosecution has invested well into six figures for their expert's opinion.. I'm sure that this enormous amount of money couldn't have anything to do with their decision, it has to be 'doing what is right to make this world a better place'that is their motivator.

    It is of no purpose to ignorantly condemn those who are trying to do the job that they are trained to do.

    By the way who was paid what is a matter of public record -- there could be surprises discovered

  • Strategy vs. Ethicality
    Dec. 11, 2009 2:45 p.m.

    According to Dr. Skeem "Dr. Welner gave an interpretation of a small excerpt of my notes," she said. "I'd be happy to review all my notes and what they mean and don't mean." --- I want to know if Skeem withheld pertinent information from her notes and interview or did she not. When it comes down to it, I am less concerned about her conclusion and more questioning her transparency and adherence to her ethical obligations as a licensed psychologist. Yes your character has been called into question Dr. Skeem, because you are being accused of deception rather than having a differing opinion.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Dec. 12, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    To Joe Moe,
    DeMeir does not know the culture. He interprets direct paraphrases of the Book of Mormon as Mitchell claiming more power than God.
    Beyound this, Skeem DID NOT state that Mitchell is incompetent, she defered to DeMeir on the matter. So you have DeMeir on one side and Welner on the other.

  • Whose GROSSLY overpaid
    Dec. 14, 2009 3:59 p.m.

    To Joe Moe & Jack Pack Lambert

    Before you bark anymore -- You mightr want to see clearly that Welner is the one who has been paid, other wise you would see media info on the amounts that the defense witnesses have been paid -- NO MENTION OF THAT --and for good reason !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • swarthmoregal Philadelphia, PA
    Dec. 3, 2010 4:10 p.m.

    I am embarassed. As a Utah native i work hard to defend Utah, but you have all outdone yourselves this time.

    Portending to know more than these professionals based on out of context soundbytes? Your armchair interpretations are completely foolish and uncalled for--they serve only to reinforce the erroneous assumption that Utahn's are unsophisticated and narrow minded.

    Calling for this guys license? Are you kidding? Is this 1692 salem?

    I read the available transcripts , and I was actually incredibly impressed at the intelligence, understanding and clinical judgement and justification rendered by these doctors. I am no mental health expert (three classes in college is all), but I am a reasonable person. Their rational and concilliatory tone was really impressive. I even had my friend's read some of whiotehead's testimony to offer support for my contention that there are some smart people living in utah...
    Please these doctor's offered an opinion that is unpopular, that is all. They are public servants doing their jobs. They were not paid (unlike the prosecution's doctor), they are not saying this guy is "legally insane." They are merely stating that he is ill.