Josh Powell to undergo psychosexual evaluation; 2 boys will remain with grandparents

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 6, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 1:52 p.m.

    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 parents.

  • MrsB1971 Kissimmee, FL
    Feb. 3, 2012 6:27 a.m.

    "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.


  • Munk Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 8:47 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 8:37 p.m.


    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.


    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!

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 6:57 p.m.

    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 Cebterville, Utah
    Feb. 2, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    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.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 2, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    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.

  • westcoastlife saltlake city, utah
    Feb. 2, 2012 4:17 p.m.

    your only hurting your own self as well as your two sons!
    Just get this story over with what really happened to Susan????????

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    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.

  • VocalLocal Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 1:38 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    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!

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Feb. 2, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    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.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    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.

  • windchimes saltlake city, utah
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    He needs some kind of evaluation very much sooo
    A story of a missing mother how long is this going to take mystery of a story.

  • twinkleberry67 Layton, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Munk Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    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...

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    deep in thought: The polygraph can't be used against him.

  • mytymouse09 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 2, 2012 5:50 a.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 1, 2012 11:19 p.m.

    "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.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    Feb. 1, 2012 10:46 p.m.

    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.

  • scemo Southern, Oregon
    Feb. 1, 2012 10:42 p.m.

    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 . . .

  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    Feb. 1, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    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.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 1, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    Yowie, that doesn't sound like much fun.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 1, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    A polygraph test. That is so awesome. I hope it is helpful in getting some level of truth out at last.