Taminator
I'll be back
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 3
Ha ha, I agree. One minute she sounds like she just baked an apple pie, the next minute she sounds like she put a file in an apple pie.
UT -Susan Powell, 28, West Valley City, 6 Dec 2009 - #2
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
Ha ha, I agree. One minute she sounds like she just baked an apple pie, the next minute she sounds like she put a file in an apple pie.
omegagal
Active Member
I found this info on a ksl news blog... What is the law in Utah? Anyone know?
No body = no crime?
You want to stand by that?
There are many who have been convicted of murder without a body. You do not have to have the body, just evidence that a murder did take place. Many times after conviction, the killer confesses to get a lighter sentence. However, there have been some even executed. And some of these cases are from decades ago, before DNA and such.
Examples: (victims)
Nina Reiser (husband Hans Reiser convicted)
Katie Poirer, 19 (Donald Blom convicted, LWOP)
Anne Marie Fahey (Thomas Capano - big time lawyer in DE)
Marcus Fiesel, 3 (adoptive parents convicted)
Helene Crafts (husband Richard convicted - The Woodchipper Murder)
Aarone Thompson (child 3 or 4) (killed by her father and stepmother)
David Richmond (killed by girlfriend Michele Roger)
These are just a few. I have posted on several in my blog.
Here is a blog with many cases: (not mine, but a prosecutor who has prosecuted some)
http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/index.html
No body = no crime?
You want to stand by that?
There are many who have been convicted of murder without a body. You do not have to have the body, just evidence that a murder did take place. Many times after conviction, the killer confesses to get a lighter sentence. However, there have been some even executed. And some of these cases are from decades ago, before DNA and such.
Examples: (victims)
Nina Reiser (husband Hans Reiser convicted)
Katie Poirer, 19 (Donald Blom convicted, LWOP)
Anne Marie Fahey (Thomas Capano - big time lawyer in DE)
Marcus Fiesel, 3 (adoptive parents convicted)
Helene Crafts (husband Richard convicted - The Woodchipper Murder)
Aarone Thompson (child 3 or 4) (killed by her father and stepmother)
David Richmond (killed by girlfriend Michele Roger)
These are just a few. I have posted on several in my blog.
Here is a blog with many cases: (not mine, but a prosecutor who has prosecuted some)
http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/index.html
JennaLee
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
So now both Josh and JoVonna are stated that Susan was NOT sick, just a little tired. Come to think of it, I don't remember reading any direct statement that JoVonna said Susan was sick, just that she went to lie down. I thought I had read somewhere that Josh had stated Susan didn't go camping because she was feeling sick, but that could have been media misinformation.
Imo, that kind of makes the drugging theory a little less plausible. Not impossible by any means, just not as strong as it seemed there for a while.
My personal theory, pretty much a compilation of a few various suggestions made here. (sorry, can't remember who) that they fought, he lost it, got violent and ended up killing her out of rage. I personally don't feel a weapon was used, I suspect he strangled her. (I agree the wet spot could be bodily fluids releasing upon death.) Once it hits him what he's done, he panics, cleans it up, sets up fans to dry it, then takes off to dump the body, planning to be back before dawn.
He goes pretty far out, possibly tries to drive off road to really get in the middle of nowhere, disposes of the body, gets stuck, maybe not just once, but a few times, eating up hours of valuable time by having to keep digging out and also explaining the frostbitten hands. By the time he does back on the road, he's pretty sure people are looking for them but likely confident that no one has actually entered the home.
He tries to come up with some sort of story and since he has the kids with him, the only thing he can think he might be able to pull off is a spur of the moment camping trip. He waits to answer his phone until he either gets back within cell range or feels he's far enough away from where he stashed the body to be able to answer the phone from a "safe" traceable location.
Again, just the best explanation for this madness I can come up with, although I've often questioned why he would take the kids at all. The only thing I can think of is that one of them might habitually wake up once or twice a night and he fears the child might somehow get out or alert the neighbors by crying.
But then (and this is a horrible thought) why not put them in a closet and block the door so they can't get out? If they wake up and find themselves alone in a dark place they can't get out of, the poor babes would likely just cry their hearts out until exhausted to the point of sleeping again, and any testimony the older child might offer police about the incident could be written off as a bad dream.
I realize it's neither safe nor legal to leave small children home alone, but it's certainly no more safe or legal than murder, so again, why take the kids? Unless we're back to the control thing. Without the kids, he'd have no control over what might happen to them and he couldn't stand that idea.
Just another theory though, and likely to change yet again with the next news update.
Imo, that kind of makes the drugging theory a little less plausible. Not impossible by any means, just not as strong as it seemed there for a while.
My personal theory, pretty much a compilation of a few various suggestions made here. (sorry, can't remember who) that they fought, he lost it, got violent and ended up killing her out of rage. I personally don't feel a weapon was used, I suspect he strangled her. (I agree the wet spot could be bodily fluids releasing upon death.) Once it hits him what he's done, he panics, cleans it up, sets up fans to dry it, then takes off to dump the body, planning to be back before dawn.
He goes pretty far out, possibly tries to drive off road to really get in the middle of nowhere, disposes of the body, gets stuck, maybe not just once, but a few times, eating up hours of valuable time by having to keep digging out and also explaining the frostbitten hands. By the time he does back on the road, he's pretty sure people are looking for them but likely confident that no one has actually entered the home.
He tries to come up with some sort of story and since he has the kids with him, the only thing he can think he might be able to pull off is a spur of the moment camping trip. He waits to answer his phone until he either gets back within cell range or feels he's far enough away from where he stashed the body to be able to answer the phone from a "safe" traceable location.
Again, just the best explanation for this madness I can come up with, although I've often questioned why he would take the kids at all. The only thing I can think of is that one of them might habitually wake up once or twice a night and he fears the child might somehow get out or alert the neighbors by crying.
But then (and this is a horrible thought) why not put them in a closet and block the door so they can't get out? If they wake up and find themselves alone in a dark place they can't get out of, the poor babes would likely just cry their hearts out until exhausted to the point of sleeping again, and any testimony the older child might offer police about the incident could be written off as a bad dream.
I realize it's neither safe nor legal to leave small children home alone, but it's certainly no more safe or legal than murder, so again, why take the kids? Unless we're back to the control thing. Without the kids, he'd have no control over what might happen to them and he couldn't stand that idea.
Just another theory though, and likely to change yet again with the next news update.
passionflower
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,743
- Reaction score
- 11,337
If susan says anything about Josh's temper or being afraid, I hope it goes under hearsay law!!
Dr.Fessel
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 25
Maybe his threats included where he might get rid of her.
Not sure on the hearsay laws in Utah.
SusanB
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 8
Jenna, I am thinking along the same lines about the poison thing, now it seems less prevalent since the friend said she was not sick, only tired. Josh would have had to make some excuse as to why she did not go "camping" with them, and that was the best he came up with on the fly. IMO the frustration and anger about losing control over his wife and the direct threat to his manhood came to a head that evening/day, maybe they had words, or she mentioned divorce, and he was set off. I think he was pissed that she was confiding in her church family - now others knew he was a "failure" as a husband/man. He refused to go to church with her that morning. How could he face everyone? Possibly, he was concocting a story about her having another man to corroborate his story that she took off on her own. That would make her look like the bad spouse, and he would get sympathy.
Unfortunately, things went awry, he had to quickly create the crazy story about camping to explain why he was gone all night with the boys - possibly he did get stuck and could not make it back before dawn, and was afraid to use cell phone to make the necessary calls to their jobs and day care.
I think he was hoping to get back in time to take down the fans blowing on the wet spot, but couldn't get back before people realized they were missing.
In his frenzied psycho state, he just spoke on the fly about where he was and all, so his stories were kind of screwed up.
A body is not necessary for conviction, but it sure helps. But the body could be anywhere, and may not be found for a long time, if ever in those land conditions. Just MOO. of course. Time will tell!
Unfortunately, things went awry, he had to quickly create the crazy story about camping to explain why he was gone all night with the boys - possibly he did get stuck and could not make it back before dawn, and was afraid to use cell phone to make the necessary calls to their jobs and day care.
I think he was hoping to get back in time to take down the fans blowing on the wet spot, but couldn't get back before people realized they were missing.
In his frenzied psycho state, he just spoke on the fly about where he was and all, so his stories were kind of screwed up.
A body is not necessary for conviction, but it sure helps. But the body could be anywhere, and may not be found for a long time, if ever in those land conditions. Just MOO. of course. Time will tell!
hellolisakitty
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 6
If I remember correctly they were holding Mark Hacking before they found Lori's body. So, we could hope based upon the items they took from the house and what they find in that wet carpet stain - they could take him in.
Just did a quick Google search and this came up...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1539190.html
Article: Utah man held in wife's disappearance No body found, but cops convinced they have murder case
And then there is Kiplyn Davis...
lemonmoussetart
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 302
- Reaction score
- 8
Some info found on utcourts.gov that may pertain to her journal, and hearsay:
Rule 106. Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is the federal rule, verbatim. Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) was not as specific, but Rule 106 is otherwise in accord with Utah practice.
Rule 401. Definition of "relevant evidence."
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and is comparable in substance to Rule 1(2), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971), but the former rule defined relevant evidence as that having a tendency to prove or disprove the existence of any "material fact." Avoiding the use of the term "material fact" accords with the application given to former Rule 1(2) by the Utah Supreme Court. State v. Peterson, 560 P.2d 1387 (Utah 1977).
Rule 612. Writing used to refresh memory.
If a witness uses a writing to refresh the witness' memory for the purpose of testifying, either
(1) while testifying, or
(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice,
an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule generally comports with current Utah practice.
Rule 802. Hearsay rule.
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law or by these rules.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is Rule 802 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974), and is the same as the first paragraph of Rule 63, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971).
(edited for purposes of brevity)
Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.
(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
Rule 106. Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is the federal rule, verbatim. Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) was not as specific, but Rule 106 is otherwise in accord with Utah practice.
Rule 401. Definition of "relevant evidence."
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and is comparable in substance to Rule 1(2), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971), but the former rule defined relevant evidence as that having a tendency to prove or disprove the existence of any "material fact." Avoiding the use of the term "material fact" accords with the application given to former Rule 1(2) by the Utah Supreme Court. State v. Peterson, 560 P.2d 1387 (Utah 1977).
Rule 612. Writing used to refresh memory.
If a witness uses a writing to refresh the witness' memory for the purpose of testifying, either
(1) while testifying, or
(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice,
an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule generally comports with current Utah practice.
Rule 802. Hearsay rule.
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law or by these rules.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE
This rule is Rule 802 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974), and is the same as the first paragraph of Rule 63, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971).
(edited for purposes of brevity)
Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.
(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 204
j, the drugging theory came into thought when she all of a sudden went to lay down while her friend was over helping HER with a crochet project.. and she fell out... so tired she couldn't complete the project
josh... hubby of the freaking year... cooked them dinner as they worked. Eggs and pancakes. Easy recipe to slip some benedryl or other sedating OTC med or otherwise into.
After Susan begs off... Josh comes out and talks to the guest about sledding that night. Not to the wife while they were all sitting there.. .but AFTER she has laid down claiming she is so tired.
The following is moo; he did something to her. He most likely is not new to sedating her or putting stuff in her food to make her drowsy. He was really pissed off at something that day it and was the straw! When the visitor leaves he goes into the bedroom and confronts her. Things go badly. Things move out into the living room. he hits her. She lands on the floor bleeding and/or looses her bowels. Perhaps he strangles her at this point. he notices the mess and knows he has to get her out of the house so takes the quilt and bundles her up. He has quite a mess on his own clothing so he takes it off, changes and bundles that up as well in the quilt. He loads her in the van in the way back. He tries to clean up where he killed her with water and some renuit but finds the carpet still wet.. no problem.. he will drive off to this remote location he knows of while the fans are drying the carpet and will be home in tme to turn them off and put them away before anyone notices anything.. He wakes up the children telling them they are going to go make smores and test out his new generator and piles them in the van.. they sleep the entire way to the dumping ground. He dumps his wife in the snow storm and his hands are chapped by this.. he forgets his gloves... once the deed is done he starts to drive home.. by the afternoon friends and family are calling and he takes the calls... but is evasive.
This is how I see it went down so far.
moo
eta: again.. the first call to LE was the wrench in his plan and it threw him off imhoo.. he never expected that.. not ever. after that it was all backtracking and he was so stupid he will NEVER, THANK GOD, cover all of his pathetic tracks.
josh... hubby of the freaking year... cooked them dinner as they worked. Eggs and pancakes. Easy recipe to slip some benedryl or other sedating OTC med or otherwise into.
After Susan begs off... Josh comes out and talks to the guest about sledding that night. Not to the wife while they were all sitting there.. .but AFTER she has laid down claiming she is so tired.
The following is moo; he did something to her. He most likely is not new to sedating her or putting stuff in her food to make her drowsy. He was really pissed off at something that day it and was the straw! When the visitor leaves he goes into the bedroom and confronts her. Things go badly. Things move out into the living room. he hits her. She lands on the floor bleeding and/or looses her bowels. Perhaps he strangles her at this point. he notices the mess and knows he has to get her out of the house so takes the quilt and bundles her up. He has quite a mess on his own clothing so he takes it off, changes and bundles that up as well in the quilt. He loads her in the van in the way back. He tries to clean up where he killed her with water and some renuit but finds the carpet still wet.. no problem.. he will drive off to this remote location he knows of while the fans are drying the carpet and will be home in tme to turn them off and put them away before anyone notices anything.. He wakes up the children telling them they are going to go make smores and test out his new generator and piles them in the van.. they sleep the entire way to the dumping ground. He dumps his wife in the snow storm and his hands are chapped by this.. he forgets his gloves... once the deed is done he starts to drive home.. by the afternoon friends and family are calling and he takes the calls... but is evasive.
This is how I see it went down so far.
moo
eta: again.. the first call to LE was the wrench in his plan and it threw him off imhoo.. he never expected that.. not ever. after that it was all backtracking and he was so stupid he will NEVER, THANK GOD, cover all of his pathetic tracks.
Patty G
Retired WS Staff
Prime News
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8FnZA2hB7Q[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5WBuh-8MS0[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le0LdMyc5Z4[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcz6EX-AeW0[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8FnZA2hB7Q[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5WBuh-8MS0[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le0LdMyc5Z4[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcz6EX-AeW0[/ame]
SusanB
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 8
Good interpretation, Nurse! Especially the unexpected call to LE - he knew then the blowing fans would be discovered, did he ever offer any explanation to anyone about the fans?
Fairy1
VOTE!!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,271
- Reaction score
- 3,389
It's probably Drew Petersen. :crazy:
Bobbisangel
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 11,071
- Reaction score
- 172
I have dinner at my friend's home and we work on a yarn project. While we are knitting or whatever my friend says she is so tired that she has to go lay down...I stay and continue to knit?????? I think that is so odd. When my friend said that she was to tired to stay awake and had to go to bed that would have been the time for me to say "I understand...we can work on this later on" and I would have packed up my yarn and gone home. Why would I stay and keep on knitting?? Is this the same friend who is keeping in touch with Josh? My mind is working overtime.
mitzi
Watch us lie to cover for 'Princess'
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,338
- Reaction score
- 9
Smart girl for keeping that notebook at work. If she'd had it at home, I'm sure ole Joshie-boy would have destroyed it.
darlin gal
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,092
- Reaction score
- 23
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TxIjfAQKCc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
Interview w/Josh's brother in law. The first interviewer (Sheppard Smith)
I have seen ask some GOOD questions.
Interview w/Josh's brother in law. The first interviewer (Sheppard Smith)
I have seen ask some GOOD questions.
Fairy1
VOTE!!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,271
- Reaction score
- 3,389
This link is from The Charley Project - on the issue of prosecuting a murder case without a body. It can be done. In fact, it has been done in Utah in the case of Kiplyn Davis:
http://www.charleyproject.org/corpus/index.html
Didn't someone mention that Josh's high-powered attorney was defending one of the guys accused of murdering Kiplyn?
http://www.charleyproject.org/corpus/index.html
Didn't someone mention that Josh's high-powered attorney was defending one of the guys accused of murdering Kiplyn?
CCup
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 11
I am wondering if there is any kind of cameras on the highways and/or bridges around this area in Utah. Maybe traffic cameras or something to that effect that may have captured the van on the road. I realize it is a big search area but if there are cameras close to the home they may have captured which direction the van headed. Anyone in the Utah area have know if there are any cameras?
SusanB
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 8
Yes, Bobbi, it is one and the same person who called Josh and he answered the phone while "out driving with the kids"
- Status