The Brian David Mitchell case gets curiouser and curiouser.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Noel Gardner testified on Tuesday that Mitchell is not mentally ill, since his ideas “are similar to those held by many fundamentalist Mormons, and in some cases mirror mainstream LDS beliefs, thereby making them non-bizarre.”

Earlier testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Paul Whitehead characterized Mitchell’s beliefs as non-bizarre or “plausible but highly unlikely.” 

However, a psychologist in Missouri diagnosed Mitchell with paranoid schizophrenia, labeling his ideas “bizarre” and “not plausible at all.”

Under cross-examination, Gardner blamed some of the difference on culture. To non-Mormons outside Utah, certain beliefs might seem bizarre. However, locals might find them more “familiar,” he said, according to the Desert News article. Hence, the different diagnoses.

I wonder what local Mormons think of this characterization. Really? Locals do not see anything bizarre in Mitchell’s beliefs? I doubt that.

From my point of view (non-Mormon, living in Utah), the “cultural relativism” explanation makes little sense. While I confess that many Mormon beliefs confuse and confound me, I have not encountered anyone like Mitchell. Then again, Gardner was talking about belief—not behavior. 

If different diagnoses sometimes come down to cultural relativism, I wonder what that says about forensic psychiatry or psychiatric diagnosis in general. How much does a forensic psychiatrist’s cultural or religious background play into determining the “plausibility” of a defendant’s beliefs? How many defendants receive tougher or weaker sentences than they deserve because of cultural relativism in diagnoses? 

Of course, none of this means I believe Mitchell or feel qualified to make determinations about his mental health. The trial has just raised important questions.