Elizabeth Smart’s testimony, which began a week ago and ended on Monday told the story of her abduction and sexual abuse of Mitchell, who prosecutors say abducted Smart from her bedroom in June of 2002.
After recounting the travel history of Mitchell, his now-estranged wife Wanda Barzee and Smart on October of 2002, prosecutors called a former San Diego police officer to the stand on Monday.
Former SDPD officer Jill Ogilvie testified that she saw Mitchell and two women walking around in Lakeside approximately 10 times in late 200 to early 2003.
Ogilvie testified that Smart’s face was always concealed and that Mitchell would always lead, with the younger girl in the middle. Ogilvie said that the trio would walk “duck style” with the man making every move and the women would mimic it.
Ogilvie testified that she recognized that the girl was of school age but not attending school, and that her attire was certainly out of the ordinary.
Former San Diego cop testifies
“I wanted to say hello,” said Ogilvie. “He gave me a look that was so intimidating…I couldn’t say hello. His look was so cold and harsh and it stopped me. At that point in time, I kept walking. I looked at the girl…her eyes were blank…dead..”
Ogilvie said she contacted a local police officer about her concerns and met with them. She also said she contacted the FBI.
Ogilvie said she had no idea who the trio was, and ran into them a week later outside a Lakeside shop.
“I wanted to interact; I wanted to get a read on him,” said Ogilvie. “The man spoke to me in a biblical way…said something like ‘Thou shalt not stop me.’ I talked to the girl and asked if she was okay. She put her eyes down and didn’t look at me. The woman behind said ‘This is my daughter.”
Ogilvie said the girl appeared to be only 13 or 15 years old, even though she could only see her hands and eyes.
Ogilvie said Mitchell was hostile, intimidating and forceful, but never claimed to be a prophet or sang hymns.
Ogilvie said that she had police training over how to deal with mentally-ill people and testified that she did not believe Mitchell was mentally ill.
Speaking of the young woman with Mitchell, Ogilvie said, “My gut response was that she was in trouble but I didn’t have probable cause to stop and detain her.”
During cross examination by defense attorney Wendy Lewis, Ogilvie testified that she felt frightened Mitchell’s tone of voice and that his manner and personality controlling and “incredibly intimidating.”
Ogilvie testified that she did not see a need to get help for Mitchell, but that she was focused on the girl.
Prosecutors then called Adelia Harrington, a San Diego librarian to the stand.
Harrington testified that Mitchell and two women came into the Lakeside library on two different occasions, once wearing robes and another time wearing normal clothing.
Harrington testified that in late February or early March, the trio entered the library during a ran storm. Harrington said the girl was wearing jeans and a windbreaker. Harrington said the group was wet, very dirty, and very unkempt.
“The girl looked very sad. She looked very cold…my first impression was that they were homeless,” said Harrington. “She just looked down at the table, didn’t look around. She just looked straight at the table.”
“How did that strike you?” asked the prosecutor. “Very unusual; I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t look around. It’s not a normal thing a teenager would do,” replied Harrington.
Harrington also testified that Mitchell requested maps, particularly to Arizona.
Las Vegas man testifies
Colianni testified that the young woman was wearing a grey wig, hat and sunglasses was being led ‘by the wrist’ by an older woman who had twigs and flowers in her hair.
Colianni told the court that he saw the trio pray over their food, and that he thought the girl seemed scared.
“She was very frightened, very nervous,” said Colianni. “She didn’t look like she belonged there. She had a ‘help me’ look.”
“Every time they moved, he had a hold of her wrist. She never looked like she would go on her own,” said Colianni.
Colianni testified that when he and his wife got into his truck, he looked at his wife and said, “Something’s not right,” and thought they should call police.
Colianni testified that he called police and left, but saw the trio walking away from the Burger King later after dropped his wife off at her work.
Colianni also testified that Mitchell did not seem mentally ill, but nervous.
During cross-examination, Colianni testified that he saw the trio pray over their meal.
In a re-direct from prosecution, Colianni testified that Mitchell had a hold of the girl’s wrist during their prayer.
The prosecutor asked, “What was it that made you call the police?”
Colianni responded, “The look on this little girl’s face.”
“What was the look?” asked the prosecutor.
“Frightened, very scared,” responded Colianni.
911 caller testifies of Sandy sighting
Dickerson testified that she and her husband were driving on State Street and 106th South on March 13, 2003 when she saw three people walking along the sidewalk.
Dickerson testified that she’d seen news reports suggesting that Mitchell was a person of interest in the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case with photos and artist sketches of the bearded man.
Dickerson told the court that she had her husband stop the car so she could get out and get a better look at the trio.
Dickerson testified that she confirmed that the man looked like the pictures and that the woman was Wanda Barzee, as she had seen in the television reports.
“That’s them,” Dickerson recollected of her conversation with her husband.
Dickerson said she used her husband’s cell phone to call 911.
Dickerson was excused from the stand after her brief testimony.
Mitchell's police interview after his arrest
The following are excerpts of the recording:
SLC POLICE DETECTIVE: How did you come to have Elizabeth?
BDM: “God lead me to her. I didn’t convert her to anything. When you read the book you’ll understand”
POLICE: “Are…you’re not Jesus Christ?”
BDM: “I’m not Jesus Christ but I’m his servant.”
BDM: “She is 18. I didn’t marry her.”
POLICE: “Did you have sexual intercourse with her?
BDM: “Those are personal and private questions.”
POLICE: Did you take Ester (eliz) out of her house?
BDM: “The Lord god delivered her to me.”
POLICE: “For the past 9 months, that family has gone through hell.”
BDM: “I understand.”
FBI: “You’re saying God provided you a virgin because you’re a servant of the Lord?”
BDM: “I’m not.”
POLICE: “Did you take that girl from her home? Yes or no.”
BDM: “I’m not going to answer that.”
POLICE: “Why not?”
POLICE : “You will never see Wanda again. You will never see Elizabeth again.”
BDM: “God had power to deliver me.”
POLICE: “You can’t have insanity defense because you hid your name to police.”
POLICE “I’m unaware of any prophet that took a girl from her house at knifepoint.”
POLICE: “We’ve talked to your former wife, Debbie and she said you’ve had sex with little children.”
BDM: “She’s lying”
POLICE: “Did you marry her [Elizabeth]?”
BDM: “I accepted her. She’s had a glorious (time) with me.”
BDM: “A mental hospital to me is the worst thing that can happen than prison. I’m going to suffer, whatever God’s will.”
POLICE: Did God tell you to take this girl for your wife?
BDM: “He did command me.”
POLICE: “Do you realize you could spend the rest of your life in prison?”
BDM: “It matters not.”
POLICE: “Prison or death, it matters not?”
POLICE: “Where have you been for past nine months?”
BDM: “The Lord takes us from place to place.”
POLICE: “Did the Lord tell you to tether your wife to a tree?”
FBI: “This is worst than Christmas mass.”
BDM: “You’re accusations are false.”
POLICE: “Did you take Elizabeth out of house at knifepoint?”
BDM: (rambles about something)
POLICE (CORDON PARKS): “You are not a prophet. You are Brian David Mitchell and have done terrible things.”
BDM: “You’re talking about shame. I’ll tell you the shame.”
FBI GEORGE DOUGHERTY: “Your story is bulls***t. You raped her; kept her tethered, you tell her her name is some bulls***t name and then you tell us that ‘god delivered her.”
FBI: “You are Brian David Mitchell, a child molester. You are a fraud, you are a hypocrite and this is bulls***t. You can wipe that smile off your face and we’ll tell you I went to church several times. That Jesus snuck into a bedroom with a knife and…this is bullsh***t.”
PARKS: “You had sex with her and made her…I’m accusing you of being a child molester and rapist.”
BDM: “You can saw what you want.”
POLICE: If you have compassion for the Smart family, how did you show it?
BDM: “I do”
POLICE: “You have harmed a girl, you took a girl and harmed her.”
BDM: (responds with religious ramblings)
POLICE: “Did God tell you to have sex w her?”
BDM: “Your accusations are false”
POLICE: “Did you have sex with her? Yes or no.”
BDM: “How did you determine…why should I submit to your accusations?”
POLICE: “Did you have sex with her?”
BDM: “According t o your question, the answer is no.”
POLICE: “Did you enter Ed Smart’s house?”
BDM: “Look me in eye…my name is Emmanuel.”
POLICE: “Open your eyes. Did you enter Ed Smart’s house? It’s a yes or no question.”
POLICE: “Yes or no?”
BDM: “I’ve already answered that question. Your question is an accusation. I’ve already answered you.”
POLICE: “What does it mean to receive her?”
BDM: “You’re asking me to say things that are sacred.”
POLICE: “Do you take joy in frustrating our efforts? It’s not about being sealed to this girl it’s all about power. It’s all about power. You must be feeling pretty powerful now. It has nothing to do with the New Testiment, Christ, or anything. It all has to do with Brian David Mitchell. You’re a complete looser. You had a 14 year old girl at your beckon call.”
2nd OFFICER: “You don’t seem to know the scriptures as well as you do?”
POLICE: “The truth is such a simple thing; it never changes. It never changes. You think that you’re the only guy we’ve ever talked to? Do you think you’re the only person we’ve ever asked how many children have you had sex with?” You’re not special, Brian… one big ego defense mechanism to cover up the failures of your life; Failure to take responsibility of your own actions. We know the Holy Spirit doesn’t talk to you. Deep down we know you feel horrible about your self because you have sex with young girls.
2nd OFFICER: “By your fruits ye shall know them…kidnapped Elizabeth…your arguments are absurd on their face. You actions speak much louder than your words. Do you think you’re going to go to court and tell the court you were doing the right thing? You were contacted by police and you gave a bad name…and a bad date of birth. Sandy police stopped you and you gave a false name and false date of birth. You were arrested by me and try to hide behind your high horse and spout scriptures; you don’t even know them that well. You’re revolting to me. You’re just another criminal to me. We don’t even want you to express your opinions about why you are who you are and why you did what you did.
POLICE: “You’re a fraud, you don’t have any explanation. That’s why you’re hiding behind your closed eyes. We are not going away. God is not going to save you from this. You’re just a man like anyone else and not a very good one at that. Why do you think God delivered you to us? We saw through your eyes and we arrested you. Why did you come back to Salt Lake City? This had to be the hottest of all places to come to. Two women; too much of a pain; too much nagging…you got a little smile on your face when I said that. Two…were you dying of estrogen poising? Why did you come back to Salt Lake City? Come on. Why’d you come back? Huh? Did you come back because you wanted to come back home? Was it getting too much to try to support three people on recycling cans? You know, you might think you’re special and all that, but as soon as we separated you two, she started to give you up. She didn’t even hesitate. She thinks you are a child rapist. You took her virginity from her. You committed the most unspeakable acts with a child. She’s talking about you. She found you rather smelly and disgusting. Do you know, that Brian? Your family, they don’t even like you.”
OTHER OFFICER: “That’s got to be tough.”
POLICE: “What bunch of bulls***t that is.”
OTHER OFFICER: “Did you actually think that this little explanation was going to work? It sounds kind of scripted.”
POLICE: “You’re not a prophet and no one is going to believe you.”
OTHER OFFICER: “Wanda is giving you up. I’ve got Elizabeth in the back of my car. She is so happy to be back together again. Elizabeth is so happy she never has to see you again as long as you live. She never has to smell your foul body odor. She never has to sleep with you. She’s free of you and if you think anybody’s going to lie to protect you. She’s already telling us what happened.”
POLICE: “You’re finished. You’re going to jail. You are going to die in prison. Does that mean anything to you? No one is going to give a s**t if you say you’re a prophet of God. No body cares about you.”
OTHER OFFICER: “And all your stuff about being a prophet... They’re not going to look at you that way. They’re going to look at you a homeless, loser, jobless, arrested for kidnapping Elizabeth Smart and raping her.
(On how the media will portray him)
POLICE: “They’re going to laugh at you.”
POLICE: “Just think of how it sounds if you say it? I like to have sex with 14 year old girls, especially when you have to do it with force.”
OTHER OFFICER: “Oh no…you have to take a knife and threaten to kill her, take her out to a camp and tie her down. We both know you have no explanation. You’re a p***y. You’re a loser.”
POLICE: “But you know what? I feel comfortable knowing Elizabeth Smart from here on out is where she belongs and you will never put your hands on her again. I feel no shame for it and I won’t go to hell for it. God will look down upon us and say ‘good job.”
OTHER OFFICER: “It’s got to be difficult to face up to the fact that. Your whole make-believe world was based upon lies and lust. It comes down to you wanted to have sex with Elizabeth Smart who plays the harp. Why would you say that? Why is the Smart family…why is her house considered ‘Babylon?”
FBI agent testifies
The 14 year veteran testified that he was part of the original interviews with Mitchell after his arrest on March 13, 2003, and that the FBI conducted their own separate interviews that weren’t recorded on audio or video tape, as per bureau policy.
Speaking of the FBI interview, the prosecutor proceeded to interview Dougherty.
Prosucutor: “When you entered the interview room, who was in there?”
GD: “Mr. Mitchell. He was sitting there with his eyes closed.”
P: “Was there anyone else in there? What did you first do when you walked in?”
GD: “We introduced ourselves and told him we’d like to sit and chat.”
P: “Did you review Miranda Rights with him?”
P: “Why not?”
Dougherty: “They already had read him his Miranda Rights.”
P: “Was your interview any different from the one we saw in the interview?”
GD: “We try to open up a dialogue to speak with him because he was sitting there not saying anything at all.”
P: “Did you become confrontational.”
GD: No, and we did not touch him. We did not raise our voice.
P: “What did you tell the defendant?”
GD: “I basically told him I read through this book and I had some questions about what he had written, that I would like to ask him some questions. He opened his eyes.”
P: “Was he willing to speak to you?”
GD: “Not at that time. I started flipping through the book. I told him I was very interested, but I was very confused. I wanted him to explain some of it to me.”
P: “Did he respond?”
GD: “He asked if I read the whole book. I said ‘no’ but I was reading through it. I got to the point where some things were so confusing I didn’t want to go on.”
P: “Did he ever move?”
GD: “It wasn’t drastic. But he was more engaged. His body language changed.”
P: “When you asked him about the book, did he talk with you?”
GD: “A little more. He wanted me to read the whole book. It took 10 or 15 minutes and he engaged in a little conversation.”
P: “How long did that last?”
GD: “I’m guestimating around an hour; maybe two hours.”
P: “What was the main topic of conversation?”
GD: “Mainly about him and his book.”
P: “Did you talk with him about the accusations?”
GD: “We tried to. At first, he wanted to quote scriptures. If you’ll read the book you’ll understand why this happened and why that happened. We would continue to ask questions about how he ended up in a police department in Salt Lake City.”
P: “His interview was cut short. How did you leave things with him that day?”
GD: “I got permission and asked if he would be willing to continue our conversation. He said yes.
P: “What did you do that night?”
GD: “I went home and read the book cover to cover.”
P: “How many more times did you speak to the defendant?”
GD: “I spoke with him a total of three times for a total of 6 hours total 2 hours per session, a little longer in the last one.”
P: “During your interviews, did your interrogation techniques approach the tactics we just saw? [in the SLCPD interview]”
P: “Did you raise your voice?”
P: “Did you ever touch him?”
P: “Who was with you?”
GD: “Detective Carl Merino of SLCPD.”
P: “Was he there for all three?”
P: “How did the defendant act?”
GD: “Very different.”
P: “How so?”
GD: “We were able to have a conversation. Not so much I’m going to ask you a question and he would explain.”
P: “Was he defensive with you?”
GD: “I wouldn’t say defensive. I would say cautious.”
P: “What type of language would he use?”
GD: “Just like you and I when I would ask him a question. He would ask a question to clarify or use something from his book or the scriptures. We would talk about those things. He would try to deflect a lot of the questions about why he was in jail. I would humor his deflection. I would not tell him I don’t want to hear that. I would try to get him back on task. I would ask the question with a different twist, so it would fit more with what he was telling me.”
P: “Do you have an example?”
GD: “Yes. Obviously we had information about what happened. But one of the things I’d asked him early on was if he had sexual intercourse with Elizabeth. He told me that was an inappropriate question. At that point I apologized. I said, ‘Let me tell you this, you said she was your wife.’ He said, ‘Correct.’ ‘So you had some sort of marriage ceremony?’ ... ‘Yes.’ ‘At that point in time was that marriage in front of God?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘At that point in time, did you consummate your marriage to make it a true union?’ He said, ‘Yes.”
P: A”fter he said he consecrated that marriage with you, did he have a reaction?”
GD: A few minutes later he stopped and kind of grinned at me. He looked at me and said ‘that was pretty good.”
P: “How many times did you get him to say something he didn’t want to say?”
GD: “He would say ‘that’s a good one George. You got me there.’ It was kind of a cat-and-mouse game. When he got caught he would fess up and say ‘that was pretty good.”
“I tried my best to seen as interested as a possibility could. He took me on as a project and was trying to teach me what was in his book.”
P: “Was his speech ever incoherent?”
Dougherty testified that the interviews took place in the Salt Lake County Detention Center.
P: “What would happen when you would take notes?”
GD: “He took note of that. You could see he would change his behavior. He knew it was important enough for me to write it down that he probably shouldn’t have said that.”
P: “What was your reaction?”
GD: “I stopped taking notes. I would jot it down later in the interview so he wouldn’t know when I would write things down.”
Dougherty testified that Mitchell refused to sign a form that allowed them to interview him, but agreed vocally that he would talk them.
P: “When he wouldn’t sign the form?”
GD: “I wrote at the bottom ‘agreed to talk, but refused to sign.’ When I went to speak with him he said he didn’t want to talk about his case.”
P: “Let’s turn to the interview on March 14th. Did you tell him you read the entire book? What was his reaction?
GD: “Yes. I think he was pleased.”
P: “During your interview with the defendant, did he ask about legal the process?”
GD: “He did.”
P: “Who initiated that?”
GD: “I believe, especially on the 15th, the day he didn’t want to talk about his case, he initiated it that day and asked what was the next step, where he was in the process and what would be the next stop.”
P: “How much time did you spend explaining the legal process?”
GD: “Quite a bit.”
P: “Did he understand?”
GD: He did. I had to talk from a federal viewpoint. I’m not familiar with the state process, and at the time he was charged with a state crime, but I went step by step through what would happen.”
P: “Were there times he didn’t understand?”
GD: “Occasionally he would ask for a clarification.”
P: “After clarification, he understood those things?”
The prosecutor asked Dougherty about his interview with Mitchell and the questions he answered about his time with Smart, Barzee and the time just after Elizabeth was taken. Dougherty testified that Mitchell spoke of how he returned to Salt Lake City after the abduction to see what was going on. Dougherty said Mitchell was amazed at the efforts to try and find Elizabeth and at how much publicity her disappearance had gotten.
P: “What precautions did he say they took?”
GD: “He said Wanda and Elizabeth had sewn some veils and wraps for their heads and eyes. When they came back from the city they had covered their faces and their heads.”
P: “Did you ask why they wore veils?”
GD: “I did.”
P: “What was his response?”
GD: “He kind of looked at me like I was an idiot. I asked him that and he looked at me like if we would have come back into town without those they would have known who we were. I think he was a little put off with me asking the question.
Dougherty testified that Mitchell told he that he knew Elizabeth would be taken away from him and that he and Barzee would go to jail if they were caught.
The prosecutor asked specifically about the encounter in the Salt Lake City Library in August 2002, and about the time a Las Vegas police officer asked them questions on their trip back from San Diego.
Dougherty said Mitchell said he was scared during those encounters, but relieved when the officers let them go. Dougherty said Mitchell was sure he’d be caught during the encounter with the Las Vegas officer, since Smart and Barzee were not wearing veils.
Dougherty also testified that Mitchell told him that deep in Elizabth’s parents’ hearts, they knew she was supposed to be with him.”
When asked about what Elizabeth’s parents were thinking or why he didn’t ask for their permission, Dougherty said Mitchell refused to answer.
P: “Did he eventually respond?”
GD: “He did. He said by just walking up and asking Mr. and Mrs. Smart about their daughter wouldn’t have as much of an impact as this played out.”
P: “What did you take that to mean?”
GD: “When he said it, I really didn’t know how to take it. But his next comments were specific enough. He talked about the impact, about the amount of publicity that this case had drawn, and at that point in time I took it that maybe he was in enjoying the lime light.
P: “Did he say whether he had seen Elizabeth’s father in press conferences?”
GD: “I don’t specifically remember that.”
P: “What did he say about the ability to return?”
GD: “He said she was free to go and could return at any point.”
P: “Did he say that was at the very beginning?”
P: “What did he say about Elizabeth missing her family?”
GD: “He said they would have conversations about families and talk in great detail, and she would say she missed her family and they missed her dearly.”
P: “What would he do?
GD: “He would try to console her and comfort her and that they missed their families but that they were a family now and they had to just love this family and move on.”
P: “Did he say if Elizabeth ever cried?”
GD: “Yes. She would sometimes cry at night.”
P: “What did he say about hearing searchers call for Elizabeth?”
GD: “He said they could hear the searchers calling out for them. They were so close they could hear them calling her name. He thought it was about 50 yards from camp.”
P: “So by saying she’s free to leave, she could hear them?”
P: “She could call out and they would hear her?”
GD: “Yes, I asked if she was bound or gagged and he said no. He said she was bound by false traditions and prejudice.”
P: “Did it remind you of something you asked him earlier?”
GD: “On that particular time, he didn’t give me a grin and say. He realized on his own he had not addressed that, he had messed up and not said something and was trying to cover it up.”
P: “What did the defendant tell you about meeting the Smart family for the first time?”
GD: “They ran into him while he was doing his street ministry. Mrs. Smart had given him some money and a phone number. Said if you need work you can call this number. You can come and do some work at the house.”
P: “Did he actually speak with Elizabeth?”
GD: “He said he saw her but he didn’t speak with her. He could tell by the conversation. She looked like someone that was very strong in her faith.”
P: “Did he indicate when he decided to take Elizabeth?”
P: “Did he work at the Smart home?”
GD: “He did. He said that from the moment he saw Elizabeth he knew she was supposed to be his wife. He went into detail about what he did…I don’t remember that.”
P: “When he said he first saw Elizabeth.”
GD: “When he saw her downtown and when he wanted to make her his wife.”
P: “What did he tell you about a party they attended in Salt Lake City?”
GD: “He talked about going to a party with veils and headdresses on. He claimed he knew the host of the party. They mingled amongst the crowd. I took it from him it was kind of a younger crowd. He had a confrontation with someone he described as a punker, and a confrontation over things he was saying or that the individual was saying.
P: “How did they leave?”
GD: “There was a point where the host realized there was an issue between him and this punker and easier for him to leave then to have an issue with this punker.”
P: “Did he say they ever went to another party like that?”
GD: “He said that was the last one they ever attended.”
P: “How did he say he got money to go to San Diego?”
GD: “Through his street ministry.”
P: “What did he say about being excommunicated from the LDS Church?”
GD: “I asked about him being excommunicated because sometimes he would refer to the Book of Mormon in a positive light and other times in a negative light. So I asked if he had been excommunicated. He said he wasn’t excommunicated from the church but that they had excommunicated themselves from me.”
P: “What did he tell you about his membership in the LDS church prior to that?”
GD: “He described in detail his childhood, that he was raised LDS but he wasn’t practicing for a long time. He had some rebellious teenage years as most people do, and when he was about 26 or so he said he could recall vividly he was at a campfire smoking and drinking and finally something just came over him and consumed him. And he knew at that point in time he needed to go back to the church. At that point in time, he stopped drinking and smoking and jumped in with both feet back into his beliefs.
P: “How active was he in the LDS church?”
GD: “The way he described it, extremely active. He was there daily doing everything he could with the church and all the different groups.”
P: “How did the defendant say the world would view him?”
GD: “As a monster, a child predator and a sexual deviant.”
P: “Are those your words or his?”
GD: “Those are his words.”
P: “What did he say about the world thinking he is crazy?”
GD: “He said, “The world would will say I’m crazy.” He said, “I’m not crazy. I’m just following God’s will.”
P: “Did you give the defendant an opportunity to tell his story to the world?”
GD: “I did. ... When I would ask him a specific question and he didn’t want to answer it. I would tell him I just want to know the truth. Would you just give it to me so I can tell the lawyers and the other agents and officers that the person they see is not who he is. He said, “No offense, but you telling them my story is just your interpretation of what I said. It’s really not my story. It’s just your interpretation of my story.” I said, “Fair enough, but if I don’t tell it, how’s it going to get told?” He said, “Maybe someday in a trial.”
P: “The way you’re describing it sounds like a normal conversation. Is that how it went down? Or were there some ‘thees’ and ‘thous?”
GD: “I thought he made a very valid point.I can tell you exactly what he said, but the overall story, I would be telling you what he told me and I couldn’t tell you what he was thinking at the time. So it made perfect sense when he told me.”
P: “What did you offer him?”
GD: “He said maybe he could tell it at a trial that day. I said at that point it is still going to be someone else’s interpretation. So I said, “Why don’t I take you out of jail, to the FBI office, get you something to eat, set up a video recorder and you tell your story. You tell us what it is that occurred and why. I won’t ask you questions. Then it’s your story. It’s in your words.”
P: “What was his response?”
GD: “He said, “That’s got some merit. Let me think about it.”
P: “Are those his words? “That’s got some merit to it.”
P: “Later on, did you ask him again?”
GD: “I didn’t want to push the issue. I said, “What do you think about that idea?” He said, “At this point in time I probably shouldn’t do it.” I said if he changed his mind he could call me.”
P: “Did he ever call you?”
GD: “We talked again the next day, but the defendant didn’t think that was in his best interest?”
P: “Did the defendant talk to you about prophets in your interviews?”
P: “What did he say?”
GD: “What he said the most was that the world was full of false prophets.”
P: “Did he indicate if there were true prophets?”
P: “Did he ever identify what his position was relative to God?”
GD: “His statements to me were that he was a servant of God.”
P: “Did he ever say he was a prophet?”
GD: “ No.”
P: “Did he ever refer to himself as Davidic king?”
P: “Did he talk about fighting the Antichrist?”
P: “How much did he open up about religion?”
GD: “A lot, mostly how it related to his book. More than I wanted.”
P: “Did he talk about lying in the street for three days and coming back to life?”
P: “Did he talk about violence?”
GD: “What he talked to me about was God’s love and God’s people. More of what he talked about was about peace and love, 1960’s hippie peace and love, and those kinds of things.”
P: “What was the final thing you talked about?”
GD: “The last day we talked I asked about the attempted break-in on the Wright family on the 24th of July.”
P: “What was his reaction?”
GD: “He abruptly ended the interview.”
GD: “He said he didn’t want to talk anymore.”
P: “How was his demeanor?”
GD: “Leading up to that it was the same. I don’t know if it was out of frustration or if I had angered him, but we were clearly done.”
P: “You said not like his demeanor the rest of the time. What was that?”
GD: “Like this, like you and I sitting here talking.”
P: “When you, throughout your interviews, was there anything that stuck out to you with the way he would answer his questions?”
GD: “More than anything else, when I asked what had happened, or about religious topics, he would pause for a long time, formulate an answer and then give me an answer. I wouldn’t get an immediate answer. There was a noticeable pause. In the video you could see a distinct pause before the answer.”
P: “How did that compare to the hundreds of other interviews you had done?”
GD: “Quite different.”
GD: “When interviewing someone who has been arrested, they are throwing answers out fairly quickly then later wish they hadn’t. He was thinking about these questions before formulating an answer. He really thought those through.”
P: “How did he come across?”
GD: “As intelligent and very cautious.”
P: “At this point in your career, March of 2003, had you interviewed people who were mentally ill?”
GD: “I had.”
P: “How many?”
GD: “I couldn’t tell you…Several.”
P: “Did you ever get the indication that he was mentally ill?”
P: “What were the differences?”
GD: “The people who I had talked to in the past, their answers were coming from everywhere. It was a shotgun approach, there were delusions. Mr. Mitchell had something he wanted to say, and he would only answer the questions he felt were appropriate and that he could use and funnel through his beliefs.”
Court was then recessed for the day.