Analysis: What Josh Powell's murder of his two young sons says about Susan Cox Powell's disappearance

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • PGVikingDad Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    First time I've said this, but it won't be the last: Josh didn't kill his children. He killed his witnesses.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    I'll be extremely surprised if it is ever proven that Josh didn't kill Susan.

    Further this writeup makes no mention of the hatchet wounds on the kids, so I don't see how Higbee's analysis of the means of death is relevant.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    I don't want to demean the tragedy at hand but I have to say this was an incredibly well-written article. Kudos to Chris Higbee. I was particularly impressed when comparing it the article on KSL discussing Josh Powell's motives that was simply terrible. By contrast this article explored well-thought out professional opinions and explored multiple dimensions of the situation. Well done.

    I hope though whatever the cause we can gain insight from this situation. I don't think we should overreact-rare occurrances such as this make for a very bad basis for overhaul of legislation, for example. However I hope that all of us can examine the downward path of control and conflict that led to this terrible tragedy and see how we can prevent it from happening in other's lives.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Such a sweet and happy looking family in the picture.

    But we all know what this part of the article meant:
    "when he was ordered to undergo psychosexual evaluation, police indicated images were found on Josh Powell's computer that, according to court records, "specifically related to their children's welfare."

    Many may say there is no connection to this, and the once happy husband and father in the picture.

    But Josh Powell joins the long, sad and infamous list of deviants and murderers know to be connected with "images".

  • Ethel Home Town USA, UT
    Feb. 6, 2012 11:11 p.m.

    The children knew something and the older they got, the more revealing of the truth was apt to come out. They were talking to their grandparents, but of course now it is too late.

    Josh Powell was a "control freak," from the get go with Susan. What if he did not like the possibility that his wife would humiliate him by a divorce? He made up his mind if he couldn't have her, (he snaps) and did something to her. The boys' comment, "Mommy was in the trunk.?" Hmmmm.

    He also did not get his way in the custody case, so he put a stop to the Cox' having custody and took his own life as well as theirs. It is a no-brainer.

    Too little, too late.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2012 10:39 p.m.

    From the article- "Why was a "person of interest" in a murder case allowed visits with his children?"

    We all know the answer to this. Here's another question- "Should we take custody away every time someone is a suspect?" Being a "suspect" doesn't mean you are guilty. We practice the "Innocent until proven guilty" system where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If you think that we'd be better off the other way around, take a look at history and how well the law protected people in the previous 1000+ years.

    Secondly, "Criminal profiler Marcel Elfers" logic that is provided at the end of this article is completely fallacious and would never hold up in a court of law- and for great reason!

    I hardly qualify these points as being worthy of Deseret News Material. The rest of the article is fine. And by all means, I'm not defending Josh Powell. I find this all very disturbing and horrific. I simply feel the need to point out how much people let their disgust in this case blind them from being reasonable. Our laws failed to protect the children, but the alternative laws would cause even further distress.