5-9-12 Steven Powell Trial *GUILTY!!!* 6-15-12 SENTENCING HEARING

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmmm.... still getting video of the ceiling. What's going on? I have audio...
 
Judge talking to reporters; who are asking about film and photos of witnesses --or so it sounds to me. :moo:
 
They heard us. :D

Video is back on courtroom.

Anybody getting vertigo from these camera angles. :)
 
That jerk, the mother of the girls is on the stand and he won't even look at her! FINALLY some shame, stevie?
 
Warning: Due to the nature of the trial, graphic content may be discussed and may appear in this video. Viewer discretion is advised.
Never saw this on a courtroom video before.........
 
I hate this when they blame the parents for having their own blinds up or bathroom/bedroom doors open.........it's normal for little kids!
SP is a pervert!
 
I just got back no sound??? is it me or them? and I cant get that stupid song he wrote out of my head LOL
 
The juveniles are testifying so that's why we have no audio and we have ceiling-video?
 
Yuck, SP looked straight at the camera..ugly pervert makes my skin crawl..............
 
With the child *advertiser censored* dropped SP is facing the 14 counts of voyeurism I sure was off on stating 70 years it looks like, it must mean if sentenced & served consecutively. I sure hope it's more than 4 years! The article below states:


Powell faces a standard sentence of around four years if convicted, but the state has alleged aggravating factors that could result in a longer term.


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...expected-to-testify-3546275.php#ixzz1uPtfyiay
 
I have a stupid question since I am new to the case -- why were the child *advertiser censored* charges dropped?
 
seattlechiquita said:
I have a stupid question since I am new to the case -- why were the child *advertiser censored* charges dropped?
Click to expand...

That's not a stupid question at all. I'm sitting here wondering the same thing. Wouldn't that charge bring the more severe sentence?
 
TallCoolOne said:
That's not a stupid question at all. I'm sitting here wondering the same thing. Wouldn't that charge bring the more severe sentence?
Click to expand...

The judge threw it out, Wa law, children not possed not child *advertiser censored*....that needs to be changed!
 
Please dont get me wrong here I dont like this guy one bit. I think he is a perve to the 100th degree. But if you allow the state to break into someone's home and take their camera that has pics of people walking down the street assuming all the rest of the films are benign like that and convict him soley on pics/video of people in everyday poses, then you are opening a big gate for the state to nab just about anyone they want and convict them too. That is alwys the threat when you are on the state's side. I know he is a creep so if the state has this great evidence to prove he is a creep why show pics of people just walking down the street? i saw some of those earlier pics they were just people. Now we know exactly what was on his mind but im afraid of giving the state such power. not for his protextion but for mine and yours.
 
dizzychick said:
Please dont get me wrong here I dont like this guy one bit. I think he is a perve to the 100th degree. But if you allow the state to break into someone's home and take their camera that has pics of people walking down the street assuming all the rest of the films are benign like that and convict him soley on pics/video of people in everyday poses, then you are opening a big gate for the state to nab just about anyone they want and convict them too. That is alwys the threat when you are on the state's side. I know he is a creep so if the state has this great evidence to prove he is a creep why show pics of people just walking down the street? i saw some of those earlier pics they were just people. Now we know exactly what was on his mind but im afraid of giving the state such power. not for his protextion but for mine and yours.
Click to expand...

The pictures of his little neighbor girls using the bathroom and taking baths aren't exactly of "everyday poses." Hidden camera pictures of Susan changing in what she assumes to be privacy aren't exactly "everyday poses." If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it is illegal to film you.
 
dizzychick said:
Please dont get me wrong here I dont like this guy one bit. I think he is a perve to the 100th degree. But if you allow the state to break into someone's home and take their camera that has pics of people walking down the street assuming all the rest of the films are benign like that and convict him soley on pics/video of people in everyday poses, then you are opening a big gate for the state to nab just about anyone they want and convict them too. That is alwys the threat when you are on the state's side. I know he is a creep so if the state has this great evidence to prove he is a creep why show pics of people just walking down the street? i saw some of those earlier pics they were just people. Now we know exactly what was on his mind but im afraid of giving the state such power. not for his protextion but for mine and yours.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. I am wary sometimes of our legal system. Have you seen these documents? http://www.scribd.com/doc/92901743/Steven-Powell-trial-declaration-regarding-items-seized

Yes, alot of pics of women in public. To me, not big deal. I figure if I am out in public, some security camera is filming me, maybe somebody with a camera phone. I hope he gets nailed on taping those little girls. They expected privacy in their own homes. The search warrant was to search for Susan's journals, you know. When LE found all of SP's videos, I was afraid that they would be thrown out as inadmissable since the SW was for the journals. (Don't know what the proper legal terms are) But, thank goodness they were not because now I think he is going to prison for voyerism on the minor girls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 97 more.
Total: 2,774 (members: 98, guests: 2,676)

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
2,676
Total visitors
2,774
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,739
Messages
18,162,118
Members
231,839
Latest member
Backhand
Back
Top