Difference between revisions of "Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?"

m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{FME-Source\n\|title=(.*)\n\|category=(.*)\n}} +{{FairMormon}}))
m (Klingensmith's testimony was considered to be worthless at the time of the trial: bot - tag "Questions")
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 +
[[Category:Questions]]

Revision as of 21:36, 12 April 2024

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: How reliable is the testimony of Bishop Philip Klingensmith with regard to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Klingensmith's testimony was considered to be worthless at the time of the trial

Critics often use the testimony of (former) Bishop Philip Klingensmith on the Massacre. One reviewer discussed the problems with this witness:

How good is Klingensmith's testimony?...upon cross-examination during the first Lee trial, Klingensmith admitted that whatever passed between Lee and Young about the massacre was outside his hearing. His testimony was so worthless that U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard declined to recall Klingensmith for the second trial. Klingensmith also admitted to participating in the massacre. He turned state's evidence before Lee's first trial in exchange for a grant of immunity. He gave his testimony as a disillusioned apostate. Thus his 6 October 1857 account is very suspect, even without Young's denial." [1]


Notes

  1. Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254. off-site