What's new
By:

Break in Susan Powell Case

ShaggyReAL said:
The story gets better and better.

Josh Powell's dad allegedly made sexual advances towards Susan Powell.
Click to expand...

What? Do you have a link?

The more I hear about this case and the more I read Josh's responses the more I think he's innocent. He's guilty of poor judgement such taking the kids camping at midnight in the middle of winter but I don't think he killed anyone.
 
Scat said:
What? Do you have a link?

The more I hear about this case and the more I read Josh's responses the more I think he's innocent. He's guilty of poor judgement such taking the kids camping at midnight in the middle of winter but I don't think he killed anyone.
Click to expand...

This. Squared. +2.
 
If I'm ever on trial for murder (one that I actually committed), I'd LOVE to see Scat and Trout on the jury. My *** would be walkin' for sure!
 
I think Josh Powell just has a weird personality so it comes off that he is guilty. Personally, I don't think he could get away with it. I just don't think he's that smart.
 
I'm not ready to string a guy up based on what I hear on TV, but you guys are saying you're pretty damn sure he didn't do it! I don't need you to prove someone else did it or anything, but I think he's still the heavy favorite as the killer.
 
Honestly, he is the only suspect and they are trying anything for him to admit he did something. But what if he didnt do it and that's why he's not saying anything because he has nothing to say?
 
Casey Anthony got away with and she has an IQ that has to hovering around 70. You don't have to be smart to get away with murder. As I said before, all you need is a sliver of reasonable doubt, a missing body, and the ability to be committed to your lies.
 
jazzman12 said:
If I'm ever on trial for murder (one that I actually committed), I'd LOVE to see Scat and Trout on the jury. My *** would be walkin' for sure!
Click to expand...

I'm sure defense lawyers would love me. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a doubt that the accused commited the crime I probably acquit them. You can't let emotion get in the way. In the case of Casey Anthony I think that at the very least she knows what happened. At the worst she killed her own child. Problem is, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a doubt that Casey was involved. That small amount of doubt means you have to acquit.

Then again, you're a Ute fan so I should probably let you fry!
 
Here's my theory. She was planning on divorcing him and was seeing another man. She either told Josh her intentions of divorcing him or they some how got into a big argument. He doesn't have family in Utah and no where to go so out of spite, he takes the two kids and leaves to get away from her. She is finally sick of it and ups and leaves with this other guy and disappears.

In regards to the wet carpet spot, maybe during their argument a glass was thrown or spilled or dropped. Both upset, didn't want to take the time to clean it up so they just got a towel and put a fan there. Or maybe one of the kids spilled a drink right before he was going to take them and he wanted to leave right away and didn't want to spend anymore time cleaning it up. They never found any traces of vomit or blood on that carpet spot.

Or, maybe she did run off with another man and this guy wanted it to look like her husband killed her so they planted that there. Basically framing him. People say that would never happen but some people have mind control over others and if she is seeing some one new, most people will do anything because they are happier with that new person.

As far as the rental car goes, we all know the police took Josh's car away from him and he was forced to get a rental car. Maybe he knew about this other guy or found something that lead him to go to Ely, Nevada to look for her so he got a car and drove there to see if he could find her because he was worried.

People say Josh hasn't been cooperative, well....that's what the media tells them. Maybe he has told them everything he knows and the police want more but he has nothing else to give them. So that's why he up and moved to get away from it all. If he's innocent, that would be hell to go through.

As far as the restraining order he has against her family for the kids....Makes sense. If you had kids and were being wrongly convicted by your family that you murdered your wife, would you want your children to be around them, feeding their minds full of things? I know I wouldn't. And kids get pressured into saying things when adults want answers.

I'm most likely very wrong with this whole thing but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when the proof is not there.
 
kwb said:
Here's my theory. She was planning on divorcing him and was seeing another man. She either told Josh her intentions of divorcing him or they some how got into a big argument. He doesn't have family in Utah and no where to go so out of spite, he takes the two kids and leaves to get away from her. She is finally sick of it and ups and leaves with this other guy and disappears.

In regards to the wet carpet spot, maybe during their argument a glass was thrown or spilled or dropped. Both upset, didn't want to take the time to clean it up so they just got a towel and put a fan there. Or maybe one of the kids spilled a drink right before he was going to take them and he wanted to leave right away and didn't want to spend anymore time cleaning it up. They never found any traces of vomit or blood on that carpet spot.

Or, maybe she did run off with another man and this guy wanted it to look like her husband killed her so they planted that there. Basically framing him. People say that would never happen but some people have mind control over others and if she is seeing some one new, most people will do anything because they are happier with that new person.

As far as the rental car goes, we all know the police took Josh's car away from him and he was forced to get a rental car. Maybe he knew about this other guy or found something that lead him to go to Ely, Nevada to look for her so he got a car and drove there to see if he could find her because he was worried.

People say Josh hasn't been cooperative, well....that's what the media tells them. Maybe he has told them everything he knows and the police want more but he has nothing else to give them. So that's why he up and moved to get away from it all. If he's innocent, that would be hell to go through.

As far as the restraining order he has against her family for the kids....Makes sense. If you had kids and were being wrongly convicted by your family that you murdered your wife, would you want your children to be around them, feeding their minds full of things? I know I wouldn't. And kids get pressured into saying things when adults want answers.

I'm most likely very wrong with this whole thing but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when the proof is not there.
Click to expand...

Holy **** bro, please never be on a jury.
 
Quick theory on the "wet spot": It's been said that no blood was recovered from said spot, but couldn't that also mean that nothing that would pass for actual blood evidence was recovered? Can't pouring bleach or another chemical on blood retard the evidence to the point where it can't positively be identified as anything, even if law enforcement has a pretty good idea it was indeed blood?

I have no idea if this theory is true. In fact, I'm pretty much just talking out of my *** right now, but damn it, it sounds feasible enough.
 
So there's a big spat with Josh's dad saying she was a slut with weird sexual fantasies coming on to him, police looking for her diaries, her family saying her diaries are private and trying to keep them outta the cops hands. If this messed up girl wasn't molested as a kid, LoveLine and Adam Carolla were just a hoax. Adam would'a figured Josh for being another messed up kid. Josh and his dad sharing a home in Washington says as much. Molested kids have a sort of "radar" for other damaged kids who would "understand"/not care.

Cops still focusing on Josh and his dad. Josh would have had to have dumped Susan's body before going off with the kids anywhere. Cops should have searched the dumpsters nearby and the dump, first. I think Josh in fact tried to follow her, turned back when he lost them in the storm, went off again looking for them. She would figure as the competent manipulator of this pair, and the one who could have picked another real loser to run off with. I bet she's dead, and I bet her real killer will never be found. Better than even money Josh will eventually be arrested and wrongly convicted.
 
jazzman12 said:
Quick theory on the "wet spot": It's been said that no blood was recovered from said spot, but couldn't that also mean that nothing that would pass for actual blood evidence was recovered? Can't pouring bleach or another chemical on blood retard the evidence to the point where it can't positively be identified as anything, even if law enforcement has a pretty good idea it was indeed blood?

I have no idea if this theory is true. In fact, I'm pretty much just talking out of my *** right now, but damn it, it sounds feasible enough.
Click to expand...

Chlorox of any strength would have had the characteristic smell, and the carpet dyes would have been bleached, even the wood underneath. The blood proteins would have been chemically altered/broken up, but all in all the iron would have still "been there", looking dark brown as iron oxide. No, if there had been blood there, the forensic chemist's results would have been conclusively positive.
 
kwb said:
Here's my theory. She was planning on divorcing him and was seeing another man. She either told Josh her intentions of divorcing him or they some how got into a big argument. He doesn't have family in Utah and no where to go so out of spite, he takes the two kids and leaves to get away from her. She is finally sick of it and ups and leaves with this other guy and disappears.

In regards to the wet carpet spot, maybe during their argument a glass was thrown or spilled or dropped. Both upset, didn't want to take the time to clean it up so they just got a towel and put a fan there. Or maybe one of the kids spilled a drink right before he was going to take them and he wanted to leave right away and didn't want to spend anymore time cleaning it up. They never found any traces of vomit or blood on that carpet spot.

Or, maybe she did run off with another man and this guy wanted it to look like her husband killed her so they planted that there. Basically framing him. People say that would never happen but some people have mind control over others and if she is seeing some one new, most people will do anything because they are happier with that new person.

As far as the rental car goes, we all know the police took Josh's car away from him and he was forced to get a rental car. Maybe he knew about this other guy or found something that lead him to go to Ely, Nevada to look for her so he got a car and drove there to see if he could find her because he was worried.

People say Josh hasn't been cooperative, well....that's what the media tells them. Maybe he has told them everything he knows and the police want more but he has nothing else to give them. So that's why he up and moved to get away from it all. If he's innocent, that would be hell to go through.

As far as the restraining order he has against her family for the kids....Makes sense. If you had kids and were being wrongly convicted by your family that you murdered your wife, would you want your children to be around them, feeding their minds full of things? I know I wouldn't. And kids get pressured into saying things when adults want answers.

I'm most likely very wrong with this whole thing but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when the proof is not there.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why there are often one or two jurors who always hold out and vote innocent. Jurors often disregard the "reasonable doubt" instructions. I get so upset when I hear the media or jurors saying the prosecution didn't prove beyond any doubt that someone was guilty. You can almost always come up with some far-fetched scenario to throw in a "sliver" of doubt. But that's not reasonable doubt. I was on a jury that faced the same dilemma. A couple of jurors had come up with a story as convoluted as the one above to explain away incriminating evidence presented in the trial. Fortunately between the judge re-explaining "reasonable doubt" and the rest of us arguing that you can only consider the actual evidence presented in the trial, not some twisted plot you'd expect to see in a crime scene TV show, the two hold-outs finally came around and voted guilty.

While the Powell case is a little more complicated, the Casey Anthony case was cut-and-dried. No way was the "doubt" that a couple of jurors cited after the case in their interviews, "reasonable." It's gotten to the point in the legal system where you CAN get away with murder!
 
I'd say maybe you can get away with murder. Most cases are never solved to the point of arresting a suspect. Another way is to hire the lawyer who knows what to say/do. Knows which of the jury pool to call on. Can recognize the Glass-Eaters.

You can also get convicted of murders you didn't do. Not too uncommon. Especially with judges who don't believe in the jury system and who will cow them into giving a verdict he wants.

Bad cops, bad judges, bad jurors. . . . best plan is to go to extremes to just stay clear of this "justice" system.

I was on a jury once too. Two jurors should have been dismissed for being paid agents of the corporate defendant, and discussing the case daily with their "contacts". I tried to tell the judge and he just about put out a contract on me.
 
I just don't think it's as hard to get away with murder as people think. One good hiding spot and you can pretty much play the no body no foul card as long as you want. There are ubsolved murders all over the place, it's funny to me how often there have been bodies discovered in the west desert since this case started only to realize the body is that of a runaway, or a minority or something and nobody bats an eye. There are seriously so many things Josh could have done, and as lob as he keeps his story straight, and more importantly vague, he'll go on Scott free.

Brian David Mitchell had a girl whose picture was plastered everywhere out walking around with him for months and months and nobody figured it out until they released a picture of the kidnapper himself.
 
The more I read about this whole thing, the weirder it gets. I'm still in the, "Innocent until proven guilty." Yeah he isn't saying much to police or basically anything at all from what the media has told us. IMO, he's not doing anything wrong with that and after all, don't we, "have the right to remain silent"? But I guess that can go both ways. Maybe he's not saying anything because he did do it or some how was involved or maybe he didn't do it and that's why he's keeping his mouth shut. I believe most people know exactly how this is going to turn out but wouldn't it be crazy if she really did run off and was found? Once again, I find that very unlikely with what I've read now. I will admit, after reading what has been going on, my whole theory was pretty much stupid and not even close to what happened.

There are some people that think the police have already recovered the body and are now building a case to prove Josh did do it or was involved. I doubt they would keep that whole thing from Susan's family.

If they do some how convict him and he did do it, I hope they have enough evidence to prove that he did do it. I'd hate to see another Casey Anthony verdict. To me, you could just see the relief on her face like, "Wow! I got away with it!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top