Monday, December 21, 2009

Josh Goes Home for Christmas


Here's the latest in the Deseret News about the Susan Powell case: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705352897/Josh-Powell-has-left-Utah.html.
"One of the biggest problems Susan had was that (Josh) talked to his dad for hours, more than he talked to her," said Tim Peterson, a friend and member of the Powells' ward who has been vocal in the past about Josh Powell and once called police on him. "And now guess where he's at. He hasn't been formally charged, but he's not that far from the border to Canada now."
Oh, this does not look good. He has taken off for Washington to spend Christmas with family. He doesn't specify if it's his family (his father lives in the same town as Susan's parents) or hers. Friends of Josh's and possibly family have been seen carrying possessions out of the house.

Scott Peterson attempted to sell the family home while Laci was "missing," with the excuse that she wouldn't want to go back there, after being kidnapped and all...the flaw was, of course, that he maintained she had been seen walking, and hence, had not been kidnapped from the house at all. His actions did not agree with his story.

Josh had clammed up and lawyered up and quit telling his story. According to one commenter on one of the news stories, he claimed to have a college degree, with some sort of emphasis on speech and theater.

If that man ever came within ten yards of a speech or theater class, I'll eat my hat! Even allowing for supposed worry and grief, the man can't string more than three words together without a long pause and a couple of "uh's."

A few other facts emerge in this article, and in comments on a different one. Josh had fallen away from the LDS church in the past year or so, only recently returning in order to participate in church-run marriage counselling. His father, according to comments in this Salt Lake Tribune article: http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14035282, is very anti-church, a situation that must have made Josh feel rather pulled between his father and his wife.

The plot, as they say, thickens.

48 comments:

  1. Scott Peterson attempted to sell the family home while Laci was "missing," with the excuse that she wouldn't want to go back there, after being kidnapped and all...the flaw was, of course, that he maintained she had been seen walking, and hence, had not been kidnapped from the house at all. His actions did not agree with his story.

    He never said she was kidnapped from the house - actual witnesses said that. He merely wanted to get his family the hell out of Modesto, recently voted the worst city in all of the USA and a hotbed of violent crime. Who can blame him?

    ReplyDelete
  2. VOS, VOS, VOS...you have always had reading comprehension problems. In the very paragraph you quoted, I said that HE said that she had been out walking. Hence my statement that "his actions did not agree with his story."

    He tried to sell the house, saying that Laci would not want to come back there. None of us could figure that one out, as he had also said that she was seen out walking, and therefore could not have been kidnapped from the house.

    "Actual witnesses" saw her in various locations, headed in various directions, walking various dogs and wearing various clothes...all at approximately the same time. Which one do you believe?

    "The truth makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth."

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Too much housework, my brain is fried. Let's try again.

    I really hope Josh gets to hear to clank of handcuffs round his wrists and gets a nice orange jumpsuit for Christmas.

    Might I also add: Next time, dumb ass, at least try to watch a couple episodes of Forensic Files.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, Lisa...I hope he doesn't get to have a next time!

    How do you like Voice of Sanity's sharky avatar?

    ReplyDelete
  6. He tried to sell the house, saying that Laci would not want to come back there. None of us could figure that one out, as he had also said that she was seen out walking, and therefore could not have been kidnapped from the house.

    This is an error in logic. Just because she went out with the dog once, twice or more times that day does not eliminate the possibility that she was kidnapped from the home. She could have been tricked into letting someone in to the house by a scheme. See the recent case of Veronica D. Deramous who, it is alleged, abducted Teka Adams.

    However it is much more likely that she was kidnapped from where her shoes were found, 170 feet from the house. She may have left them there in the hopes that they would have been some sort of clue as to what happened.

    Scott and Laci were already discussing leaving Modesto and finding a more pleasant place to live. No doubt this horrible crime intensified Scott's desire to do just that, to get his family away from Modesto (or Methdesto as the locals call it).

    ReplyDelete
  7. It was an error in logic. SCOTT'S error in logic. I was paraphrasing what he said at the time.

    When was it ever established that those flip flops were Laci's? Pregnant women rarely walk around in wedge-heeled flip flops in December, especially as they seemed very small.

    I don't recall that there were any plans afoot to move away. I know Scott didn't like living there, and that they had moved there at Laci's behest...probably to keep him from being surrounded by bevies of babes...

    ReplyDelete
  8. VoS- He's been convicted, alternate possibilites have been exausted, you can quit trying to defend the f**k face.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, the Peterson West case has been rehashed six ways til Sunday; the bottom line is that he was tried and convicted and sentenced to death row. You can try to spin the bullshit anyway you want, but these Scott supporters, you could show them a videotape of Scott killing Laci and they STILL would think he was innocent.

    Of course, they probably also think that Peterson Midwest (Drew), that was all just a terrible coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. VoS will never admit that. When all his appeals have been exhausted and he gets whatever California uses these days, she will be outside the prison with her candle, sobbing, "NO! Remember the BROWN VAN!!!"

    She is absolutely compulsive. During the trial, we thought that many like her were in it for the 15 minutes of fame, but she is one of the maybe three (besides family) that are still out there yammering that the state didn't prove its case! The jury pool was tainted! The cops had tunnel vision! Somebody kidnapped Laci and cut Conner out of her and threw them both in the bay right were Scott said he was fishing!

    ~sigh~

    ReplyDelete
  11. She has a blog alert for Scott's name, and shows up to defend her love interest whenever he's mentioned. It's like Pavlov's dog, really.

    Chandra, as you have probably gathered, Lisa, VoS and I go back a LONG way! You have probably als gathered that she is not open to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, VOS hasn't come to see me, yet, and I've mentioned her boyfriend on a number of occasions this year.

    The parallels with Peterson West are becoming more inarguable, especially now that we find out Josh bought a disposable cell phone (that can still be traced, my dear) and rented a car that he no doubt revisited the scene of the crime/burial site with.

    I expect him to return to the scene in the near future, so I hope the police in Washington and Utah can get their act together and follow him. He will go back sooner or later, just like Peterson did with the Berkeley Marina.

    Since I wrote an entire book about Peterson's case, I don't feel compelled to defend the investigation or the trial at this point. Whatever happened to Matt Dalton and his definitive (snort) book on Peterson's defense??

    Oh yeah: nothing.

    In reality, if Geragos had been as inept as Dalton suggests, there would have been a complaint, a possible disbarment, and lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am a MAN you silly tarts. Logical, reasonable, intelligent. I'm not a silly woman like you, unable to feel anything except hatred for an innocent man convicted by evil scum and morons and unable to think of anything except where your next meal will come from. As for 'reason', this is beyond your competence level. Leave reason to me - you'll never manage it.

    Both Dr Henry Lee and Dr Cyril Wecht measured Conner. Both said he was 19.5" That's a full term baby, as every other witness said except one ego maniac prepared to do anything to get his name in the papers. The baby was full term and showed no signs of prematurity at all. No more proof of Scott's innocence is needed.

    If Sharon Rocha hadn't shut down the search center out of spite against Scott, Laci and Conner might have been found alive. Nobody hates as much or for as little reason as a woman.

    Scott was the only one who never gave up hope of finding them alive until there was proof of there deaths. He loved them better than anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ooh! "Silly tarts, are we?" (in my best Cockney accent!)

    Please, feel free to drop by any time and favour us with your logic, reason and intellect.

    ~waiting with baited breath~

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ooh! "Silly tarts, are we?"

    What on earth would make you guess that "A Voice of Sanity" referred to a woman? That's insane.

    Please, feel free to drop by any time and favour us with your logic, reason and intellect.

    Both Dr Henry Lee and Dr Cyril Wecht measured Conner. Both said he was 19.5" That's a full term baby, as every other witness said. The baby was full term and showed no signs of prematurity at all. No more proof of Scott's innocence is needed.

    That's logic, reason and intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  16. At 19.5, he could have been full term, but full term babies are frequently as large as 21 or 22, which is still in the "average" range. If he were destined to be a 22.5 baby, he could still have died at an earlier time. Just because the normal range of full term babies is something like 19 to 22, not every full term baby falls between those numbers.

    You're right--I should have known you were a man, to try that argument!

    Your insults to myself and my commenters are arrogant and uncalled for, though, and you are treading a fine line.

    ReplyDelete
  17. At 19.5, he could have been full term, but full term babies are frequently as large as 21 or 22, which is still in the "average" range. If he were destined to be a 22.5 baby, he could still have died at an earlier time. Just because the normal range of full term babies is something like 19 to 22, not every full term baby falls between those numbers.

    He was observed to be a little smaller than average during the later ultra sound so he must have put on a growth spurt after that - which proves Scott Peterson is innocent.

    Quote: "The biggest issue was the baby's body development. To obtain an accurate estimate of age, we measured the baby's length. Decomposition does not impact length because a person's bone structure does not shrink from immersion. Conner measured about 19 and a half inches, which is technically within the range of a full-term baby." -- Cyril Wecht, Tales From the Morgue

    Fetal Development Chart:
    38 weeks = 19.61 inches = 6.80 pounds

    You're right--I should have known you were a man, to try that argument!

    And yet it is vastly more competent than any argument you have offered. Show me any logical deduction of yours that would do credit to the intelligent person.

    Your insults to myself and my commenters are arrogant and uncalled for, though, and you are treading a fine line.

    Then why did you (and your 'commenters') use insults against me instead of reasoned arguments based on facts? My first post contained no insults but you instantly responded with them. When will even one of you, ever, come up with a logical argument for guilt more sophisticated than "We hate Scott Peterson"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Md. woman arrested after trying to cut out fetus of captive

    Mother, child recovering

    By Matt Zapotosky
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, December 8, 2009

    For nearly five days, police said, Veronica D. Deramous kept the pregnant woman, bound with duct tape, inside her Suitland apartment, giving her food and drink to keep her alive. Deramous wanted the woman's unborn baby girl, police said, and was willing to get it by any means.

    Sometime over the weekend, police said, Deramous turned up the volume on the TV, shoved a rag in the woman's mouth and put a piece of tape over it. Then she uttered a chilling warning.

    "You're strong," Deramous told her victim, according to police. "You can handle what I'm going to do to you."

    Using a few box cutters and a razor blade, Deramous cut into the woman's abdomen, police said. When the woman, 29 and homeless, escaped sometime in the next 24 hours, her placenta, stomach and intestines were still exposed.

    ...

    Deramous has no medical training and gave the woman no painkillers before cutting into her abdomen, Mints said. After the attempt, Deramous apparently went to sleep, Mints said.

    That allowed the woman to wriggle free of her bonds and run outside, Mints said. Alerted to the woman's escape, Deramous ran after her, and there was a struggle in an outside hallway, Mints said.

    Soon, neighbors were coming out of their apartments, and Deramous told her son that they had to flee, Mints said.

    A man called 911 to report the incident, although he apparently thought Deramous was a man, she said.

    Efforts to reach Deramous's relatives were unsuccessful. Police said the pregnant woman identified Deramous from a photo lineup, and detectives made phone contact with her in Arlington before arresting her about 7 p.m. Sunday.

    Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
    ------------------------------
    This woman and her child were lucky, escaped and survived. If not, they might have wound up dumped somewhere like Laci and Conner were.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, Voice, we know it has happened. that still does not mean it happened in this case. Husbands do kill their wives, and that is what did happen.

    My smallest child weighed 7.3 lbs at birth, and measured over 20". I also had an 8 lb who measured over 22". Growth spurts happen, as well, and averages are just that: averages, and proof of nothing.

    The reason I loathe Scott is because he is guilty. He was pretty smart about it, and the only evidence was circumstantial, but the truth is the truth.

    that's the thing about circumstantial evidence...you can hammer at individual bits, but the total of all those bits add up to too great a coincidence to ignore.

    But, that's OK, Voice. everyone needs a hobby...

    Oh, and Voice? It's my blog, I have the delete button. It's not a democracy where everyone has equal rights.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Average" means nothing in terms of having a baby. Every pregnancy is different, every baby is different, every mother's body responds differently.

    When did Drs. Lee and Wecht become ob/gyn experts, anyway? I thought they were pathologists? Laci's own ob/gyn, who testified, and treated her throughout her pregnancy, and knew her body, also testified. I guess that was just speculation, but the pathologists, who probably never delivered a baby or cared for a woman throughout a pregnancy after their internship or residency, back when Moses was in short pants, know better, right?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you, Lisa...I had forgotten who the third doctor/expert was.

    Odd, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, Voice, we know it has happened. that still does not mean it happened in this case. Husbands do kill their wives, and that is what did happen.

    Yes, and I can list many such cases. However I know of no case in the history of the world where a husband cut his own son out of his wife's living body killing them both. Can you quote ten -- or one?

    My smallest child weighed 7.3 lbs at birth, and measured over 20". I also had an 8 lb who measured over 22". Growth spurts happen, as well, and averages are just that: averages, and proof of nothing.

    But Conner's December 23 gestational age was established as 33w1d by examination on that very day. So according to you Conner must have had an extra-terrestrial growth spurt to be full term by 10:08 a.m. December 24. What cases of such a thing are there? Can you quote ten -- or one?

    The reason I loathe Scott is because he is guilty. He was pretty smart about it, and the only evidence was circumstantial, but the truth is the truth.

    No, the reason you loathe Scott is because your TV told you to. Stupid people in the media kept telling you what to think. No one tells me what to think. I rely solely and only on the evidence.

    that's the thing about circumstantial evidence...you can hammer at individual bits, but the total of all those bits add up to too great a coincidence to ignore.

    You can't 'add up' bits of circumstantial evidence. The jury instructions say this is not permitted. You must find one of more pieces of evidence each of which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, lead only to a conviction of his guilt. So far not one person on the planet can point to even one such piece of evidence. Every one of the items so often quoted is either neutral or leads to innocence. Some items are enough on their own to conclude absolute innocence - a quite unique occurrence. Scott was convicted on prejudice and nothing but prejudice.

    Oh, and Voice? It's my blog, I have the delete button. It's not a democracy where everyone has equal rights.

    True, but such an action will prove to me that you are unable to succeed by logical argument and therefore have been defeated by my logic, reason and intellect. This will be another triumph for truth, justice and the American Way -- and me!

    When did Drs. Lee and Wecht become ob/gyn experts, anyway?

    They are expert pathologists, something Devore is not. They know what is evidence, something Devore does not know. They have seen many dead babies, something Devore has not seen. Their evidence is reliable. Devore's is not. He couldn't even measure the bone accurately and that is his supposed specialty. He also used Jeanty as his reference so his theory is valueless.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are thoroughly entitled to your opinions, a fact of which you are only too aware.

    I made up my own mind about Scott, thank you very much. I was convinced he was guilty as soon as I saw the same look on his face that was on my kids' faces when they tried to lie to me. As a matter of fact, the talking heads were not too hopeful of a prosecution win in that case, until after Amber testified.

    It almost seems as if we are talking about two different cases.

    I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. I have a small cadre of readers, most of whom like either what I have to say, or my way of saying it.

    However, I will enjoy discussing this with you whenever Scott's appeal is heard (or any time, really), but we are not going to convince each other of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Of course Scott was lying, but only to and about Amber Frey. In every other case it was the police who lied - and the prosecutor lied as well. They lied about the murders - he only lied about sex.

    Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods ... got the picture?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Um...why? What was there about this know-nothing fertilizer salesman to prompt such a far-reaching conspiracy?

    Oh...and when I saw the lie on his face, he was not talking about Amber.

    Believe me, voice--Scott was no Tiger! LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't assume that a bunch of people all working from their own agendas is a conspiracy. Everyone wanted it to be Scott Peterson for their own motives - they didn't want it to be a crime committed by the usual criminal scumbags in Modesto. And the media was desperate for it to be him, desperate for a story about a good man gone bad to sell newspapers and TV time.

    So everyone 'helped' the case a little, by bending the rules a little. Everyone shut their eyes to all other possibilities. This is known as 'noble corruption' and is the cause of far too many false convictions such as that of Clarence Brandley in Conroe Texas.

    Go look at the case of Gilbert Cano. Look at all of the evidence in this case - evidence that all goes to guilt. That's what the prosecution needed against Scott - that's what they had none of in Scott's case. And yet the same prosecutors didn't even try to convict Cano. Why? Because even the local papers weren't interested? Because there were no rewards for anyone for convicting Cano? There's a dirty smell about this - the smell of corrupt behavior.

    Remember, to this day not a single person on the planet can point to one piece of evidence against Scott - everything is in his favor when judged by the rule of law. Some 'system'. Some 'justice'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. They pointed to a lot of evidence against Scott, the warp and the weft of which was woven into a solid web.

    What are you trying to do? Convince the Internet of Scott's innocence, one blogger at a time?

    Forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If the prosecutor had evidence, why did he admit in his closing he had none? Why did he have to lie to the jury more than once? Why did he have to testify himself in violation of the rules of evidence? Why did it take 20,000 hours of prosecutor time to come up with such a lot of nothing? Because he had no evidence. Because there was no evidence. Because Scott was not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  29. VoS- I see no logic, reason, or intellegence in your comments. I can't find sanity, either.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I grow weary of his blatherings...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chandra said: "VoS- I see no logic, reason, or intellegence in your comments. I can't find sanity, either."

    That's a sad reflection on you. I'm still waiting for a single poster here apart from me to offer a logical argument.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've been drawn enough into your specious argument. Nobody here owes you anything in the way of logic or anything else.

    I have plenty to do, arguing cases that have not been tried, with killers who have not yet been convicted.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Right- your post was about a new wife killing f**kface. It dosn't take any kind of expert to see guilt when it's standing in the road.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Chandra said: "It dosn't take any kind of expert to see guilt when it's standing in the road."

    Apparently it DOES take some actual expertise to notice the absolute lack of evidence of guilt in these cases. It DOESN'T take any expertise to jump to unwarranted conclusions, as hundreds of cases now show us.

    ReplyDelete
  35. He was convicted because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that he's guilty. Even Californians. Has anyone checked to see if this VoS is in fact SP in disguise? Maybe he gets online in jail and goes around defending himself under other identities.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chandra said: "He was convicted because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that he's guilty."

    I accept your conclusion that those, such as yourself, who think him guilty have only two brain cells. I, however, have the full 100 billion and they are all working fine.

    I note that despite all of the noise you make, everything you point to as 'proof' of guilt instead proves him innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My eyes are OK. It's my mind that is as sharp as a razor.

    ReplyDelete
  38. VoS, are you on Facebook? My blog entries export to there, and get a whole nother set of comments. I'll friend you if you want to read them. I'm on there under my real name: Veronica Prior.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't feel the need to reiterate all the evidence. It's been discussed to death. The case is settled to my satisfaction. I'm sure he will be laughed out of court on appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  40. VoS, while I can't begin to comment on what brand of shoes is preferred by my guests here, I can categorically state that neither Chandra nor I owns a single pair of Nikes.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Missing woman's husband sells house, leaves Utah

    Barely a month after Susan Powell, 28 went missing, her husband Josh Powell is reportedly packing up the couple's belongings and moving out of Utah. Josh Powell is a person on interest in his wife's disappearance, but he has never been named a suspect by police and is therefore permitted to leave the state.

    At this point West Valley City police confirm they have only heard rumors that Josh Powell is considering moving. Investigators tell the Deseret News, "If we were to find out he was going to move, we might make another effort to talk him."

    ReplyDelete
  42. somebody at InSessions checked and reported that the house was in both of their names (Joint Tenancy). How can he sell it if it's in both of their names?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I remember a lot of discussion in the Chris Coleman case in St Louis about how his deceased wife had filed a quit claim (or, in the Language of the Message Boards, a "quick claim") on their house, and it was registered on the same day they jointly refinanced the home. To me, that screams of some sort of coercion. That was a supposedly very religious family in which the husband was found to be having an affair with a dog-track worker in FL, while he flew around, as Chief of Security for Joyce Meyers Ministries.

    As far as I know, no such quit claim has been discovered in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Josh Powell is reported to have moved to his father's home in Puyallup, WA (a few hours from me). The boys are with him.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've been seeing that, too, VoS. The police seem very nochalant about it, but I guess, as they say, they have to put up or shut up. They can't stop him leaving if they don't have enough to charge him. Hopefully, they are in close contact and cooperation with LE in Puyallup (how does one pronounce that, anyway?), and somebody is keeping an eye on his movements. BTW, except for the one daughter who lives in UT near her mother, rumour is that ALL of Josh's grown siblings live with their father, including the one that ran for office.

    ReplyDelete