When I read that she was testifying at Mitchell's new competency hearing, I was stunned. I suppose I assumed that the guy was rotting in jail, where he should be. Instead, he has been tested, and re-tested, for mental stability. Obviously the guy is whack-o! Why are we spending good tax dollars on having him evaluated for competency to stand trial? Anyone that would creep into a little girl's bedroom at night, whisk her away for a make-shift wedding, keep her tethered to a line, rape her multiple times on a daily basis, and threaten to kill her entire family if she tried to escape, is beyond any level of sanity.
The man is coniving, calculating, and dangerous. He sang hymns in court and preached to the judge - which easily could be an effort to underscore his insanity plea. Since his religious outbursts are evidentiary to his being off-balance, does that mean that zealots declaring God's word in an unusual manner are subject to being considered insane? I'm surprised there is no outcry from evangelistic corners whose representatives should be insulted!
Anyone that commits a crime has to be somewhat unstable, though many are saner than some of the oddities in Walmart. When a crime is committed, and continues repeatedly or long-term, there should be no doubt that the accused is off-balance. Any serial killer is a prime example. If they are competent enough to carry out a crime, they are competent enough to stand trial.
I believe in our system of "innocent until proven guilty," but Mitchell wasn't plucked out of thin air, and the evidence is far beyond circumstantial.
The only thing crazier than Mitchell, is the system that wants to "prove" he is insane.