A polygraph test. That is so awesome. I hope it is helpful in getting some
level of truth out at last.
Yowie, that doesn't sound like much fun.
I will be very interested in whether he actually takes the polygraph. His
lawyers will no doubt fight that tooth and nail. But we will see.
My guess is that the issue of his wife's disappearance won't be brought up since
the focus of the polygraph is his sexual risk. However, if the disappearance is
discussed and incriminating statements are made, they won't be admissible in
court. Because they are court ordered, he is denied his right to remain silent.
Though it may answer some long lingering questions . . .
Glad that the boys are staying at the grandparents still. Come on, they think
that they are in danger cause boys get hurt? Has anyone looked to see if Josh
ever had to go to the hospital when he was a boy? What will be tragic is if
those boys ever have to go back with their dad, hopefully they can find evidence
to show things one way or another.
"Police consider Josh Powell a person of interest in his wife's
disappearance because they say he has been uncooperative in their
investigation."Every time I read more about Mr. Powell, I just
feel like I have fallen in a cesspool.There arr, rightly, legal
standards of proof required for a conviction in court.However, I
certainly have no doubt about the verdict in my mind.Best wishes to
the kids, and I hope that someday there will be sufficient evidence for Josh to
get his day in court and hear it. And a verdict, and a sentence.
It will be interesting to see the results of his evaluation. Great idea for the
judge to order the evaluation, and glad she is allowing the children to stay
with Susan's parents.
deep in thought: The polygraph can't be used against him.
I still think that Josh's father had something to do with this. At least the
boys are being taken care of by grandparents that honestly seem to have the best
interest of the boys in mind.Besides if someone is so unbalanced as
to take his boys out on a camping trip in the middle of the night in freezing
weather; then they should not have custody...
If the allegations regarding the Cox family abusing the Powell boys had any
foundation, the Powell family would not have to resort to internet slander. I
am glad to hear that the boys are doing well with their grandparents and I send
them happy thoughts. I sincerely hope investigators get to the bottom of this
whole slime pit and Susan's family can have some closure at last.
He needs some kind of evaluation very much soooA story of a missing mother
how long is this going to take mystery of a story.
This is horrible and the public support of it is sad.If they haven't
charged him of anything, then a polygraph to determine if this father should
raise his children is highly inappropriate. If he is guilty of nothing unlawful,
then the court has no business interfering with his life in this way. The act of
taking custody away from who is likely the sole parent and according to our
STANDING laws is an innocent person is despicable and the public acceptance of
it is cause for concern for our future and our right to be free. Even if he was
charged, it wouldn't be appropriate. Why? Because unlike the growing masses, I
still support the constitution that declares all to be innocent until proven
guilty.If he was being charged and found guilty, there would be no
question. But for now, the court is acting invasive and to those that support
it- the acceptance of this doctrine is incompatible with the doctrine in our
constitution. If society wants that, then so be it. But this country will never
stand without preserving our basic freedoms. I won't be responsible for that by
accepting this decay of moral values.
A polygraph condemns you if it indicates guilt and is typically ignored, and
regarded as insufficient evidence if it indicates innocence. Does anyone else
realize that? I hope Mr Powell takes it successfully then, whatever your
"gut feeling" it will bring the consistent use of polygraphs into
serious discussion. It it's a reliable guide it should be so for demonstrating
innocence and not just guilt.
To the 'Voice of Reason', if you don't think that a young boy who is raised by a
father who has all the behavior of sexual predator should be examined, fails to
understand that abusive parent generally raise children who become abusive
parents. The fact that he took these boys back into his father's home shows
that he did not find this atmosphere objectionable. The boys need to be
raised with a 'mother and father' image. Josh should be working, meaning that he
would have to place them in day care anyway. Better with family than strangers.
The article says the analysis is ordered due to images discovered on his
computer in 2009, later states no in court described the images because no in
the court had seen them.So he was ordered to undergo evaluation
based on images that no one had seen? Based then on hearsay, which is
inadmissable last I checked.
Josh is being abused. It seems like the court is doing everything possible to
make sure he is behind bars without any real evidence of his guilt. He may look
guilty on paper but until there is a trial, he is innocent.
CB, "all the behavior of sexual predator"That's not the
truth. If he had all the behavior of a sexual predator, he would have done
something illegal and actually would be a sexual predator.Just
because Hitler liked Wagner doesn't mean that my liking Wagner makes me like
him. Or would you disagree? According to the argument you have proposed, I am
deserving of the same psychological examination one would give Hitler.The man viewed things online that were inappropriate. The vast majority of
male citizens have done the same. The images are considered 'questionable' but
yet have provoked no legal action. This is a curious thing to me. Why not? Why
questionable? But regardless, our standing laws do not support any action
against him. You may disagree and I respect your right to disagree, but none of
our opinions have any say over this mans rights and the current laws protecting
them.Did he sexually abuse someone? Did he exploit children? Without
a crime, who are we to judge him? What law can you point to in order to split
this already broken family apart?This is wrong and illegal and we
all know it. Either put him on trial or drop it. That's the law!
Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence and for good reason-they are
notoriously unreliable both in assuming people have lied when they told the
truth and in assuming people have told the truth when they lied.I am
no fan of Josh Powell-I think it is very likely he is guilty of Susan Powell's
disappearance and for that reason I don't think he should be in custody of his
children. However I also don't think that legal adult images on a home computer
should ever be used as a reason for keeping a parent from his children. Based
on that logic well over half of American children would be removed from their
homes. I don't think the court should use such irrelevant things to dance around
the real issue-that there is considerable reason to suspect Josh Powell of his
wife' disappearance. From my understanding the division of child services
doesn't need enough evidence to convict a person of a crime to remove their
children and in this case I think the court should just state that the opinion
of the court based on considerable circumstantial evidence is that Josh is
responsible for his wife's disappearance and until he can provide some
compelling evidence to demonstrate that is not the case his children will not be
in his custody.
VocalLocal, you stated the following-"Polygraphs are not
admissible... for good reason-they are notoriously unreliable""legal adult images... should ever be used as a reason for keeping a
parent from his children. Based on that logic well over half of American
children would be removed from their homes.""I don't think
the court should use such irrelevant things to dance around the real
issue"-------I agree completely. IMO, if there is
concrete evidence showing he harmed his wife, then custody should be taken and
he should be held and given a trial. I don't know enough personally to suspect
either way.Until the dispute over the images is resolved, they
shouldn't separate children from their father. I believe the real motive of the
court is regarding her disappearance as the images weren't grounds for
separation until after she disappeared.
To VocalLocal | 1:38 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012 You realize, don't you, that
there is no evidence (even circumstantial evidence) Susan Powell is dead, much
less that her husband had anything to do with her disappearance and/or demise.
The only thing he is "guilty" of at this point is refusing to let the
police railroad him into saying things that they could twist, misconstrue and
use against im. He did what his attorney told him to do, and kept his mouth
shut when it became apparent that the authorities were trying to "tag"
him for his wife's disappearance when there was absolutely no evidence to
implicate him.While I truly don't like him and would not be
surprised with any discovery in the case, I like even less the fact that
attempts are being made to pressure him to give up his constitutional rights
(and attempting to use his children against him in the process). Since there is
no evidence against him at this point, and he is not living in his father's home
any more, the children belong with him.
your only hurting your own self as well as your two sons!Just get this
story over with what really happened to Susan????????
a polygraph is not reliable, many people who are guilty have passed it and
people who were innocent have failed it. There are many things that effect a the
results of a polygraph and end the end it is an interpretation of the person who
administers it.What images were found, there has been no indication
if they were of children, his children in the bath, pictures of undressed women
or undressed men. Non of this is the courts business as long as it does not
involve child porn. Again psychosexual examination is according to the
interpretation of the person administrating the exam and can be disputed, denied
or held as correct by many different psychotherapist. If they had
any evidence that he was responsible for his wife's disappearance they would
have arrested him already. Any time a spouse disappears or is killed the
surviving spouse is always a suspect. As for the police saying he won't
co-operate well that;s because he stood up for his rights to have a lawyer
represent him and that always makes the police mad.Did he do
something wrong? I don't know and you don't either. Until they have evidence all
they are doing is violating his Constitutional rights and that of his son's.
If he is innocent of everything, then why should he care if he takes the
polygraph? If it will shut people up and he is left alone because of the
outcome of the test, he should take it and get it done.
Most of the comments on the board seem really reasonable. Seems like allot of
the lynch mob is gone. No one likes Josh Powell because they don't
understand his behavior, and think he did it. I don't like him either, and
regarding his wife, if he did it then God will punish him more than any jury
ever could. Having said that, what Washington (state) is doing to
him is a disservice to the constitution, it is wrong. Don't
forget that even though sometimes criminals may go free, the constitution does
something much more for the innocent. It may or may not apply in this case, but
one day you or someone you know will be grateful for the life saving protection
that you are trying to take away from this individual.
guswetrust,You stated, "If he is innocent of everything, then
why should he care if he takes the polygraph?"There is a lot of
truth in that statement. However, when other innocent persons have failed
polygraphs why should anyone else take them? I have never done an illegal drug
(or any drug really), never hurt anyone physically, or any crime more serious
than getting a speeding ticket, and so on. I still wouldn't want to take a
polygraph myself. I'm not comfortable with something that I don't believe has
any bearing on the truth.Northern,We're allowed 4
comments on here, so with my last I feel it is more than appropriate that I
mention your comment. I thought it was well worded, friendly, and mostly a great
thing to say. I don't really like or dislike the guy. But having been wrongly
attacked and even hated based on assumptions that were false- I feel only
obligated to speak out on issues like this. I'm don't favor letting the guilty
'get away' because of loose legal rules. I simply believe in giving the most
credit possible, innocent until proven guilty, that the 'burden of proof' is a
true logical principle that courts should uphold (popular or not). Thank you for
the great comment!
A judge who has a reasonable doubt as to the well being of minor children may
take measures that he or she deems appropriate. In this case it is not so much
one having to do with Susan's disappearance but one rather of the boys having
been in a home of a sexual predator. The judge is not trying to keep the boys
from seeing their father as visitation is still allowed. We have to understand
that also in accordance with the laws of this land what is happening to Josh is
legal and the judge is not doing anything other than he is mandated to do. The
polygraph test is not to fully determine innocence or guild but rather to
provide information for the judge in the custodial case. Unfortunately in any custodial cases it is the children that suffer, and these
boys even more so because of the loss of their mother. Keep in mind that this is
not about Josh's guilt or innocence in regards to Susan. I have my
own opinion on the case and it runs that gamut.
"Bassett argued the Coxes should have been more careful. "They (the
boys) shouldn't be anywhere near a part of the house that's under
construction," he argued"Oh my word, my irony meter just
exploded. Yeah it was better for the boys when they were living in Steven
Powell's home, we all know that they weren't exposed to anything harmful there.
A polygraph to evaluate his psychosexual mindset is highly unlikely to contain
the question 'did you murder Susan?'. His lawyers will probably be standing
right there and will probably veto any questions that could incriminate him in
any way.I think that the kids are much better off with Susan's
Re: Furry1993 | 2:48 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012 "You realize, don't you, that
there is no evidence (even circumstantial evidence) Susan Powell is dead, much
less that her husband had anything to do with her disappearance and/or
demise."In hind sight would you agree that Josh Powell's
detractors were correct in suggesting that he posed a danger to his sons?