Judge: Jurors won't hear 'disturbing' descriptions of Steven Powell's obsession with Susan

Cox family still hasn't had time to mourn grandsons' deaths

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BU52 Provo, ut
    May 9, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    Can't we let this story die? If they find Susan's body then that will be newsworthy. The fact some guy in Oregon is going to trial for voyourism is hardly newsworthy, except maybe for the voyours.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    Judge: Jurors won't hear 'disturbing' descriptions of Steven Powell's obsession with Susan


    That's because it's completely Irrelavent to this case and trial.

    Steve Powell is not on trial here for the disappearance of Susan Powell.

    Get over it!

  • Gracie Boise, ID
    May 9, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    "Constitutionally protected behavior cannot be the basis of criminal punishment."

    I'm glad several others have already addressed what I was thinking to add, and said it well, especially Voice. Since when should known voyeurism and written statements about it be inadmissible because pornography is "constitutionally protected behavior"? Distancing invasive behavior (voyeurism) from legally protected porn to prevent a hard look at a possible accomplice shows how sick our justice system has become. Serving it this way as a judge shows who needs to be defeated in the next election.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 9, 2012 10:18 a.m.

    I'm not liking this judge. I think that he's splitting hairs. Bad move for his next judicial retention election, if Washington has such a thing. Judges sometimes need to let all the evidence be heard and let the chips fall where they may. They are too concerned with getting overturned on appeal. Let the jury decide after getting the information.

  • Polymath48 Dugway, UT
    May 9, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    I have to agree with Atikokan from Oregon, the law is very clear on this and you have to understand some guilty have to go free to (hopefully) prevent the atrocities we see in other countries where guilt has little to do with evidence.

    So, my suggestion is to follow Mr. Powell's example and publish HIS diaries on the internet for all to see!

  • fcbenjamin Chittenango, NY
    May 9, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    So, generalities are allowed, but specifics are denied because they are not relevant to this case. Actually, in my mind, specifics back up the generalities. One wonders if the specifics would be allowed if the specifics were not about Susan Powell.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    May 8, 2012 11:41 p.m.

    So much for the phrase in the oath that one takes before testifying: "The Truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing BUT the truth." Lawyers have so twisted this common sense meaning that you can only answer what they ask you and what is in their mind. They can fabricate, create doubt and innuendo and all sorts of theories and the truth be darned (use a stronger word here) all because they are "trained in the law." Well, what about justice? I thought that was what courts were all about, but then I reflect on something as sinister as answering for a minor traffic violation in traffic court and see the games played out in that forum and it's a wonder anyone is punished for their crimes. To add insult to injury, the judges are all lawyers themselves and uphold their own profession to the maximum, lack of justice notwithstanding.

  • Voice Saint George, UT
    May 8, 2012 11:17 p.m.

    After reading the entire document prepared by the prosecution, I thought the journals should be allowed. The prosecution gave supporting precedent cases that backed their position and their reational for using them as evidence. This shocks me that they were not allowed.

    Is it against the law to take voyeristic pictures of adults? What if the adult is partially clothed but doesn't know a picture is being taken? Could he be prosecuted in Utah for pictures of Susan? Does any reader know the law on this? Thanks if you do and could answer.

    Also, why are there only 14 charges if there are hundreds of photos? Can there only be charges if there is a person who can be identified in the photo? Does age matter? Does how much clothing the person has on matter?

  • Atikokan Sutherlin, OR
    May 8, 2012 9:23 p.m.

    As disturbing as this case is, I'm afraid the judge made the right decision based on current law. Not justice mind you, but law. I was in law enforcement for 15 years and to see stuff like this galls me. Current law requires evidence to be relevent to the case and Powell's obsession with Susan, while sick, is not a crime. Now, if he were to be implicated in her death, these diaries would be on point as evidence.

    Personally, I think he's involved in her death, but then I'm a suspicious person by nature.

  • guswetrust Cebterville, Utah
    May 8, 2012 5:49 p.m.

    Sometimes I think about Susan and think, at least the boys are ok, then remember they are gone. It has not even sunk in with me. I will never forget this horrific case. Peace and healing to the Cox family.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    May 8, 2012 4:46 p.m.

    I can't imagine the grief, the incredible sorrow which would come from the death of two grandsons and a daughter whose body has not yet been found. I am not sure of what is "properly grieving" means because the saddness that must come from such tremendous loss will never end. The emptiness which gnaws at you after the death of a loved one does not cease for a long time. I know you keep searching for the person in your mind, never to find them because they have passed on. Then when the realization comes that they are truly gone, it hits you like a punch in the stomach.

    But this case is something so much more devestating. Two little boys were murdered by their father. He murdered his wife, their daughter, and hid her body somewhere in this world. Her body, the body of their daughter, was never recovered.

    This is a situation where I would not be looking to get over grieving but to stay sane. I wish the Coxes all the comfort and peace that the good Lord can give them.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    May 8, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    I don't think that you can ever put a time limit on the grieving process. Sure things get better with time, but all it takes is a familair fragrance, photo, piece of clothing and you are back to square one.