Dear readers,

I vanished from this blog without an explanation, so let me now offer one and let you know what is going to happen with The Polygamy File.

Last fall, I asked to be allowed to step away from the polygamy beat so that I could pursue an opportunity to help a plural family write a book about their lives. As part of that, I took a four-month leave from the newspaper to work on the book, which will be published in September. You can read a bit about Love Times Three, which expands the discussion about polygamy beyond the FLDS, here.

I am currently focused on other assignments at the Tribune: the open records debate, child welfare, adoption and domestic violence.

The Tribune’s polygamy coverage is now in the very capable hands of my colleague Lindsay Whitehurst, who has quickly established herself as an authoritative source on the topic. She’ll likely start her own blog at some point. The Polygamy File, meanwhile, will remain online as an archive.

It is remarkable to me how much has changed since former managing editor Tom Baden asked me to cover polygamy as a full time beat in March 2006. I’ began writing about polygamy for the newspaper in 2003 on a part-time basis — ever since I suggested to former editor Peg McEntee that we should be paying more attention to what was going on in the twin towns given the way Warren Jeffs seemed to be culling his flock. Fine, she said. You do it.

By 2006, with Warren Jeffs in hiding because of a series of criminal allegations and the United Effort Plan Trust in state control, there was enough to do to warrant having a reporter tracking events daily.

For two years, the only people who would say anything about the FLDS were apostates and attorneys and the occasional off-the-record, background-only source. That all changed, of course, in April 2008 with the raid on the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado and the emergence of Willie Jessop as a spokesman for the sect.

Now, Jeffs is in Texas, Willie has been ostracized and silence surrounds the sect once again. Big Love has come and gone. The trust is still in turmoil. There’s no telling how this will all end, but you’ll want to follow Lindsay for the latest twists in these issues and other polygamy related news.

Thanks for reading this blog over the years, and for all your comments and criticisms. I met many fascinating people and learned much about human nature over the course of this assignment. I owe thanks to those of you who took the time to help me understand the many complex issues I encountered, from legal maneuvers to aspects of the culture and Fundamentalist Mormonism. Your contributions helped informed our readers. Thank you!

The fifth season of “BigLove,” which gets underway in January, will be the show’s last, HBO announced today.

Was TLC’s show “Sister Wives” a show stopper? Maybe. Here is what “Big Love” co-creator Will Scheffer told Donna Freydkin of USA Today about the show in September:

“Big Love scribe Will Scheffer [says] his show isn’t so much about the nitty-gritty of having numerous wives as it is about a complicated family and how it functions day to day. And he says there’s a big difference between showing actual plural families and the fictionalized, attractive one on his show.”

“I don’t want to see any more real-life polygamy. People have been turned off by the idea of polygamy — there’s a yuck factor,” he says. “When we started, people didn’t know much about it and were really interested by this subculture. And then Warren Jeffs and his compound exploded in the news. We were at the right place at the right time.”

Here are two photos from the Salt Lake Tribune archives, taken after the 1944 prosecutions of a group of Fundamentalists on polygamy-related charges. I think the photos are from 1945, when the men were jailed.

A problem: Our photos don’t have any caption information. Do you know who these men are? If you are willing to provide id’s, email me at brooke@sltrib.com

Here are several more photos found in the Tribune archives. The original captions, included here, are nearly as good as the photographs!

The photo editor was looking through the Tribune archives and found a file marked “polygamists.” Inside were photos from 1944-45, when 15 men were charged with various crimes related to polygamy. They are a famous — infamous? — group.

The men shown in this photograph are:

Left to right, front row: Joseph White Musser; Joseph Lyman Jessop; Charles Frederick Zitting; Heber Kimball Cleveland; Arnold Boss; David B. Darger; Oswald Brainich.

Leftt to right, back row: Morris Quincey Kunz; Rulon Clark Allred; Alma Adelbert Timpson; Edmund F. Barlow; John Y. Barlow; Louis Alma Kelsch; Ianthus W. Barlow; Albert Edmund Barlow.

The state called  numerous women as witnesses, and charged several. Shown in this photograph are:

Front row: Melba Finlayson; Jean Barlow Darger; Marie Beth Barlow Cleveland; Mary Mills; Juanita Barlow

Back row: Leona Jeffs; Myrtle Lloyd; Rhea Allred Kunz; Mabel Finlayson

I interviewed Kody Brown and his wives — Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn — Friday about “Sister Wives,” the TLC docu-series that stars the family. The show, which also features the family’s 13 children, debuts tonight.

The Browns had just returned to Utah after making an appearance on the “Today Show” in New York City.

Despite the cross-country jaunt and media whirlwind, they were energetic and excited about the show’s launch.

Here are the Cliff Notes to who’s who:

Meri (first and legal wife) is 39, has been married to Kody for 20 years and has one 14-year-old daughter.

Janelle (second wife) is 40, has been married to Kody for 17 years and has six children ranging in age from 15 to 5.

Christine (third wife) is 37, has been married to Kody for 16 years and has six children ranging in age from 14 to 5 months (the birth of the last child is part of the show).

Robyn is 31 and becomes Kody’s fourth wife during an episode of the series. She has three children, who range in age from 10 to 5, from a previous marriage.

Meri, Christine and Robyn all come from Fundamentalist Mormon families; Kody and Janelle do not. But don’t count on getting much more explanation of the religious roots of their faith on the show; during the interview the family said they planned to say little about their religious affiliation or the politics surrounding their lifestyle.

That has already caused some confusion. A Huffington Post story about the show erroneously referred to the family as members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. An Entertainment Weekly story said they belong to the “Reformed Church.”

Here’s my Q & A with the Browns, which includes their explanation of why they want to avoid drawing attention to their particular church:

How did you decide to do this show?

Kody: The producer actually got in touch with us through Principle Voices and he said he wanted to make a documentary. He solicited TLC after we consented with him. So somebody came looking for us.

But how did you as a family decide to do this?

Kody: He presented it and we discussed it as a family, we discussed it in depth.

Christine: Yeah, we did.

Robyn: With the children as well. We sort of took a vote.

Christine: We just made it clear that our goal right from the very beginning was to do a documentary about our family. He agreed as far as we didn’t want it to be intrusive, wanted it to just be about us, and there was nothing . . . .

Commercial break: As Christine explains the family’s goals for the show Meri suddenly gags after taking a bite of a brownie and rises from the table where we are seated, holding a hand over her mouth. I am thinking, “Where are the cameras! This is is great!”

Meri: That’s mint.

Christine: Oh sweetie, is that mint? Honey, mine wasn’t. Mine wasn’t, mine was not mint.

Robyn: She hates it! She hates mint. Oh, she hates it so bad!

Christine: She’s going to throw up!

Laurie Goldberg (TLC publicist): From that reaction I thought I was going to have to take you to the hospital!

Christine: No, she felt like I betrayed her. Honey, I didn’t think it was mint. Mine was not mint!

Robyn: Oh, she hates it. If you have some gum in your mouth, you can’t breathe around her.

Christine: And the same thing, if you have a banana in your mouth, don’t breathe around me.

Meri: Sorry!

Christine: That is so funny. I thought I said something [wrong]. I was like, “It’s the truth! What do you mean?”

Meri: All you said is, “It’s really good Meri, try it.”

Christine: Oh, that was mint. There you go.

Kody: This is the way it is all the time. They are always quite engaged.

Now we return to the interview . . .

So you voted about it (doing the show)?

Kody: It wasn’t necessarily a vote but it was a full, open discussion and as far as everybody was the family was united about it.

Christine: The teenagers have gone, once we started filming, the teenagers have gone back and forth. Somedays they don’t want to be and some days they do want to be. But we have let them know, if you don’t want to be then just don’t be in the film, just don’t.

What’s it like logistically to have the cameras in your home? Are they there every day, are they there when you get up?

Meri: There was one day, two days I guess, that we planned that they would be there when we got up. It was something scheduled and something planned and all the kids knew about it because we wanted to for the first episode do a day in the ‘life of’ type of thing. But other than that they are not there. We schedule everything. It is not a 24 hour-a-day thing. It’s all scheduled, we know when they are coming.

Robyn: Yeah, we know when they’re coming and they just say we just want you to just do your regular stuff and we’re going to be here. And it’s actually surprisingly very . . .

Kody: Nonintrusive.

Robyn: Noninclusive, yeah, very much so.

Christine: They keep the crew very limited so we never feel like they’re really there.

Robyn: They’re like family. The kids love ‘em. They run and jump in their arms, and they want to talk to and play with them.

Meri: They’ve come over for birthday parties and different functions without their cameras.

Robyn: Some of them are going to be invited to Thanksgiving.

Meri: We’ve come to know and love these people over the year we’ve been working with them.

Robyn: They’re really great people.

Meri: And they are very respectful if there something’s going on and we’re like, ‘Wait a second, cut the cameras,’ you know, because we just can’t have that going on.

Tell me one episode when you had them turn off the camera.

Christine: Well, the other day Aspyn came home from school and she’d had a bad day that was a little bit challenging and she came home from school — she’s 15 — and she just looked at me and saw that we were being filmed. I forgot to tell her that we were going to be filmed and she likes to know way in advance. She gets her planning from Janelle, actually, not from me. She’s just like what are they doing here? And I said, “Oh, I’m sorry, they’re filming today.” And she’s like, “They’re not filming me” and she went into her room and slammed the door.

So I’m, like, okay.

Meri: There will be times that I’ll get home and they will be there and Kody will be like, ‘Oh yeah, sorry I forgot to tell you they were coming.’ And I’m like, arggh, . . Alright give me five minutes, 10 minutes, to collect myself and plan for this because I need to have a little prep time in my head.

Robyn: I remember, they were at my house and they were following me into the bedroom, I had to go in there for something, and they asked can we follow you in, and I said, “No” and slammed the door.

Are we going to see some of that?

Robyn: No. It wasn’t like I was mad or anything it was just like no, you’re not coming in my messy bedroom right now.

What has been the reaction of your friends and family?

Meri: It’s mixed.

Kody: Yeah, it’s very mixed. Some of it is ridiculously supportive, like they’re rooting for us, like ‘You go.’

Meri: And some are ridiculously not.

Kody: Some are absolutely opposed.

Christine: It’s a wide variety.

Robyn: We’ve got some family that just really like, “I don’t agree with you doing this kind of an idea” and we just have to go, “Okay, I’m sorry. I love you any way.”

Kody: It is an issue that to us that is sacred and so there is a deep concern amongst our society that it will profane what is sacred.

Christine; And that is not our intention. We want to just show our family. And we never want to cross into anything that would make other people feel uncomfortable or that we were trying to represent any one other than us. This is just our family. And that’s really what we hoped would happen.

What is the reaction of your faith community to this?

Robyn: Very mixed as well.

How about in the broader Fundamentalist Mormon community?

Meri: I’m sure that is going to be mixed, too. I think that is going to be with everybody, not even just our faith, our religious peers or family, but just people in general, the American public in general — it’s going to be mixed.

How are your children handling this public attention?

Christine: We’ve got a daughter that doesn’t want to live this lifestyle but she’s the first one to tell her friends that she is part of a polygamous family. And she’s like, “Do you want to come over and meet them.” And she brings her friends over and she goes, “This is Christy, and she’s one of my moms.” She is the first person to introduce.

I think it’s been liberating for them that they can tell people, tell their friends, but that is extremely their choice. If they don’t want to tell people — they will find out because of the show — but we’ve never made them tell anybody or not.

Robyn: A couple of my daughters, they’ll came home and they’re say, “Yeah, we told our friends, we’ve told them about the show.” My six-year-old, she’s like, “I told my friend I’m going to be on TV and I have a big family and stuff.”

And I said, “What did they said/” “They said, “Oh, great!” And they went and played some more. Can you see Breanna saying that?

Christine: I can. Oh! Great!

So they are handling it pretty well?

Robyn: So far.

Kody: Kids are very resilient. On some days they’re gung-ho about it. We’ve really have only a couple that have been actually shy about the show.

Meri: My daughter has said, — she’s 15 — she’s like, “Oh mom, it is going to be so weird to walk into the store and have people recognize me. She’s cool with it, but she’s like it is going to be so weird.

Janelle, who was in a different room doing another interview, joins the conversation.

You are still in the midst of this but how has it affected your relationships?

Janelle: It’s made us stronger.

Meri: It’s made us stronger. We just know we have to kick it into high gear and work on these relationships so that we can be strong.

Kody: Being in front of the camera and the sets is almost cathartic. You start expressing all your emotion, you start talking about it. And one time we were over expressing our emotions and I looked over at Janelle and she said we just saved ourselves 20 years of emotion swept under the carpet.

Christine: $10,000 in therapy.

Kody: Because we are actually dealing with the emotions. And so what we do, we forgive each other, we love each other and we move forward as a family.

Robyn: We know being on a show like this has a tendency sometimes to put a lot of pressure on a family so we’ve made an extra effort to communicate, to take time to make sure that we are discussing things we need to and make sure we are on the same page. We’ve actually been very proactive about it.

You said on the Today Show that faith and love were your reasons for doing this. Can you elaborate on both? Faith and love?

Kody: The faith one is a difficult one because it’s a faith-based lifestyle and as I have gone through this for 20 years of marriage with Meri, 16 with Christine, 17 with Janelle and now Robyn’s come into the family, I would look back on the whole thing and say I would do it for love. Because I’ve got these beautiful children, I’ve got these beautiful wives and I’m very happy with my situation.

Okay, so that’s the love. But then it’s faith-based . . .

Kody: But it is faith-based and anybody who understands Fundamentalist Mormons are going to kind of know why. But to protect the , , ,

Janelle: We’re only here to talk about our family and that’s all we can speak to really. I don’t know what’s going on with everything else.

Kody: Exactly.

Meri: Except you have a belief and you have a belief in this lifestyle.

Christine: It’s hard to go there.

Robyn: It would take all day.

Christine: Because if we try and represent our community, they might not like it. There’s no way we are even beginning to represent the LDS Church and people might think that way. So it’s really hard to say exactly, to be fair to everybody.

Kody: It becomes political.

Janelle: Ultimately, we only set out to say, ‘You know what? Our family is so happy, we’re so happy. We love our life. We chose our life. I would choose it again just like Kody. Really truly, that’s all we can speak to.

You set out to show how happy your family is, you know the legal environment you sit in here, is there a motive to show that it should be decriminalized or not penalized in the way it is?

Christine: That’s not what we’re setting out to do. There is not way that our living this way is any disrespect to the law in any way. What we are setting out to do is to just promote understanding and awareness and acceptance. That’s what we’re really hoping to do.

Kody: We believe there will be more safety in all of society if there is more transparency in the polygamous community. We don’t have any control over the polygamous community, but this family has chosen to be transparent.

Robyn: We just want to say that there are a lot of stereotypes, a lot of belief, a lot of ideas about polygamy is, what plural marriages is and that those do not fit this family.

Christine: We absolutely just want to show that our children are so free thinking and so free willed and that’s what we like.

Janelle: They are free willed. It’s loud at our house! (laughs)

Meri: They are really strong willed, they have to be to deal with all of us. (laughs)

Christine: And we like it that way. And we want them to speak their minds.

Robyn: All you have to do is look at Mykelti’s hair! (laughs)

Christine: We like them to speak their minds. And that’s what we want for them for the whole future. We just want them to love their life.

Janelle: Yeah, understand choice and consequence, be strong. Make the choices that make them happy.

Kody: We want them to choose their faith and their lifestyle as well.

Robyn: Of course, you know, we promote and want them to be able to choose their spouse and when they get married. And we promote education to them.

Janelle: I will say we are sort of like more than promoting the education. We sort of like . . .

Kody: . . . enforcing it a bit.

Meri: My daughter, I say you can’t get married until you’re 21 or 22. And she’s like whatever, mom, 25. She’s like, ‘I’m going to get some college behind me before I . . .’ That’s cool.

Robyn: Let them be an adult first.

What do you hope is the outcome of doing the show?

Janelle: A better life for our kids.

Christine: Very good.

Kody: Tolerance and acceptance.

Meri: Openness and honesty.

Robyn: A little bit of knowledge and a little bit of education for the public.

Christine: It’s almost like the lyrics of a song . . .

The women then weave the phrases into a spontaneous song: Tolerance and acceptance. And that’s a family. Openness and honesty. Education and information. All you need is love!

Janelle: We’re a little punchy.

Robyn: It’s been a long three days!

Are you following the comments and reaction to the show?

Christine: Can I say I love it? I watched “Nightline” last night and I was so excited.

Janelle: Well, the comments, we’re not paying attention . . .

Christine: Oh no, just “Nightline.”

Kody: We’re not following the blogs. They’re scary.

Robyn: We’re not watching blogs. We made a family rule to not read blogs.

Meri [in high squeaky, confessional voice]: Some of us break the rules sometimes.

Christine: Freedom of choice! Freedom of choice. I watched “Nightline” and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was so fantastic. They presented exactly what I had in mind: Four amazing, independent women, they showed Kody as a loving father, a loving husband, it showed the kids having a good time with each other. They showed me in my pajamas, which I’m none too thrilled about but that was my choice to go on there. And it was just wonderful. I’ve been thrilled. If it’s been neutral, it’s wonderful. But it’s been so positive.

Janelle: It’s been open. I guess most of what we’ve seen has been open. There are those who don’t understand, and it’s okay.

Robyn: I haven’t run into them personally.

Janelle: Well, there will be and I’m okay with that because, you know what, they have the right to believe the way they want to believe and that’s okay.

Robyn: I just want them to have all the information before they make that judgement, that’s all.

Kody: Or if they’ve made that judgement we’re hoping to give them more information that changes their viewpoint.

Janelle: Or at least expands it. . . . A lot of it is education. The show is gong to help address a lot of that we hope.

Robyn: There’s a lot of misconceptions. And they are going to sit and talk about on these blogs and everything. What we’re hoping, though, is, a lot of times what happens is and we’ve seen this several times, people have this idea then they watch the first three episodes and they’re like, ‘Oh!” and they’re different.

Janelle: They are at least willing to consider that it is not what they thought.

Kody: So many people start out thinking that my wives suffer from low self-esteem, which is a crock.

The worst comment I’ve ever seen was . . . what pitiful women with such low self-esteem. That is so far from the truth. They didn’t enter this lifestyle because they have low self-esteem. That is one of the worst of the stereotypes. It makes me angry to think they . . .

Meri: If you knew any one of us, you would know otherwise for sure.

Janelle: We are definitely opinionated.

Meri: And we let you know.

Janelle: That is the goal of this whole thing. The show really is about saying there is more than you know that is going on here.

Just saw this statement in a review of the Kody Brown family’s TLC series, which debuts on Sunday, by the Huffington Post’s entertainment editor Katy Hall. Oops. This will be news to the Browns, the FLDS and the Apostolic United Brethren — which is actually the sect that counts the Browns as members:

“The Browns and their 12 children are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), which, as Kody says, likes to “reward good behavior.” Why stop with one good marriage when you could have four? (Kody is courting a fourth wife, whose assimilation into the tight-knit circle of sister wives provides the only conflict in a family that keeps reminding us how happy they are.)”

Just before the Labor Day weekend, 5th District Judge G. Rand Beacham slipped out a decision in FLDS member Allen G. Steed’s attempt to get a rape charge dismissed.

Beacham ruled that the statute of limitations had not expired when the state charged Steed following his testimony as a defense witness in Warren Jeffs’ trial in 2007.

Jeffs conducted Steed’s spiritual marriage in 2001 to Elissa Wall; Steed was 19 at the time, Wall was 14. She testified during Jeffs’ trial that she objected to the marriage and to having sex with Steed but was ignored.

No word yet on whether Jim Bradshaw, Steed’s attorney, will appeal or when a trial might be set.

I knew it would be a short one, but two minutes? That’s the time it took to conduct the open court hearing for polygamous church leader Warren S. Jeffs today.

The hearing was delayed about 45 minutes while attorneys met in chambers with 3rd District Judge Terry Christiansen, where they negotiated several things we then heard about in open court.

Jeffs, as expected, will fight extradition to Texas. Here is the story. And here is the summary:

1. Jeffs will be allowed to wear street clothes at his court hearings.

2. Attorneys will file briefs during October.

3. The next step in the process will take place Nov. 15. The state and defense offered slightly different versions of what will be debated in that hearing.

Here is what the attorneys said after the hearing.

Utah Assistant Attorney General Craig Barlow:

Texas sent its extradition warrant “and the corresponding warrant from Utah had been signed and reserved and served on Mr. Jeffs, alerting him to his right to oppose the extradition by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”

[On what took place in the judge's chambers]

“We arranged on the hearing date and what the procedure would be here and the timing for the extradition hearing.”

“There was a motion to have Mr. Jeffs appear in civilian clothing. We chatted about that and then there was a discussion about whether he would have to wear restraints. And there was a discussion about that. The judge ruled accordingly, as you noted.”

“There will be briefs filed next month and a hearing on November 15, where we will hear Mr. Jeffs’ challenge to the extradition which is basically identity, sufficiency of the charges and adequacy of the charges in Texas.”

“I am not going to speculate on what the judge might decide but those are the grounds under which an extradition can be challenged.”

“It is not my decision about retrial, that is Mr. Belnap’s in Washington County and I wouldn’t comment until a final decision has been made and none has.”

“We do not believe that a retrial is necessary before he can be extradited. No.”

“The timing [of any retrial, if there is one] is something that is going to be decided probably by Judge Christiansen and possibly Judge Shumate. Our position is pendency of the Utah charges on potential retrial are not a legal bar to extradition to Texas on the current charges filed there.”

“We don’t need him here right now and we think the great state of Texas ought to have an opportunity to try Mr. Jeffs for the crimes he has been alleged to have committed in Texas.”

“And we have filed petition for rehearing with Utah Supreme Court asking them to clarify some aspects of their decision from last month.”

Defense attorney Walter F. Bugden:

“All that happened is Texas has, of course, sent an extradition request and the governor of Texas has signed an extradition warrant and the gov of Utah has signed an extradition warrant. So both governors have signed off on extradition warrants that would create a legal mechanism by which Mr. Jeffs would be sent to Texas to face criminal charges in Texas.”

“All of us know that the Utah Supreme Court has reversed Mr. Jeffs conviction here in Utah and has remanded the matter back for Washington County to decide whether or not they are going to retry Mr. Jeffs.”

“It is our position that Mr. Jeffs is entitled to have a speedy trial and to have finality of the Utah charges. It is our position he should be sent back to Wash County and if Washington County believes that they can go forward with this prosecution then they should do that now before Mr. Jeffs is sent to Texas.”

“The reality of the situation is if he is sent to Texas now he won’t come back to Utah to face a possible retrial on the Utah charges for several years. Utah filed first. Mr. Jeffs was in custody for one year before he went to trial in September 2007.”

“He was convicted by a jury and then he has been incarcerated since 2007 on an unlawful conviction, on a conviction that has been reversed by the Utah Supreme Court because the legal theory that the state used to prosecute this unpopular figure was wrong. That is what the Supreme Court has said — that the instructions and legal theory that the Washington County  Attorney’s Office used, or the state used, to impute criminal liability to Mr. Jeffs was simply wrong.”

“So we believe that Mr. Jeffs is entitled to have a speedy trial, a right that is guaranteed to all citizens, to have a speedy, public trial. What we are saying is we want to go back to Washington County and if they want to try to prosecute us on this theory, on this flawed legal theory, then let’s go forward here in Utah before Mr. Jeffs is sent to Texas to face charges there.”

“We aren’t trying to prevent Texas from ultimately having its opportunity to prosecute Mr. Jeffs, we’re simply saying the Utah prosecution was brought first and Mr. Jeffs should be entitled under the constitution and under common sense. You don’t have to be a lawyer to think that it is just simply fair that Mr. Jeffs be allowed to have finality of these criminal charges here.”

“We think it is a flawed prosecution in Utah, we think the correct legal decision for the prosecution is to decide to dismiss the charges since they are not going to be able to prove these charges.”

At the next hearing, which won’t be until Nov. 15 before this judge, we will have the opportunity to argue why we believe that the extradition to Texas is unlawful — not just that it doesn’t feel right, but that there is a legal basis to say the Texas and Utah governors are depriving Mr. Jeffs of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, they’ve entered into an improper agreement and we intend to air that out before Judge Christiansen. And if we are unsuccessful there we plan to continue appealing the issue to the Utah Supreme Court or wherever we have to go to defend Mr. Jeffs’ right to a speedy trial and to be treated fairly.”

“That maybe Mr. Barlow’s interpretation of the law [that a retrial isn't required before sending Jeffs to Texas]. Mr. Barlow’s interpretation of the law was the same interpretation of the law in arguing its case to the jury that the Utah Supreme Court has reversed. So lawyers can have a different interpretation of what the law is. Mr. Barlow’s interpretation of the law at the trial court level was wrong. The Utah Supreme Court has said it was wrong and we believe that our interpretation of the extradition law is correct and Mr. Jeffs is entitled to a speedy public trial in utah before he is sent back to Texas.”

“The practical reality right now is Utah is losing. The state of Utah is losing, so what do they want to do? They want to send him off to Texas, let’s get rid of Mr. Jeffs, we made a mistake prosecuting Mr. Jeffs, let’s just send him to Texas, let’s let Mr. Jeffs be Texas’ problem. Well, we’re here to protect the rights of Mr. Jeffs and so we look forward to this hearing on November 15.”

[On how Jeffs is doing in prison]

“He is holding up great. He is doing just fine. He is very appreciative of the Utah Supreme Court’s decision. He is a prayerful man and he feels, and the people who support Mr. Jeffs believe, that their prayers were answered.”

“He is a little thin, he is a little thin. He could use some fattening up.”

The Centennial Park Action Committee was “disappointed” to learn of comments made by Kirk Torgensen, chief deputy in the Utah Attorney General’s Office, at a recent victim’s conference. His topic was “Polygamy Victimization.”

“Disappointed” might be putting it too softly. CPAC issued a statement today during the monthly Utah Safety Net Committee meeting in Salt Lake that said Torgensen’s “rhetoric and bias” setback years spent building bridges and trust between the state and polygamous communities.

Here is the statement.

Mary Batchelor, a co-founder of the advocacy group Principle Voices, said during the meeting that the unfortunate thing was thousands of people from around the world heard Torgensen’s comments but were given no context or explanatory information that would have helped focus his observations on individual behavior vs. groups of people.

Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office, agreed to help arrange a meeting between Torgensen, CPAC and other Fundamentalist Mormons concerned about his statements.