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.
DomCasual said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have not read anything about a hidden camera. I see where SP filmed Susan in "everyday poses". But I also read where he filmed Susan and Josh kissing in their bedroom. Did they not close their door? SP states he saw Susan inserting a tampon. Was the door not closed? SP mentions that he filmed Susan at work. Did she not know or did he have some super lens on his video camera? IDK. I was thinking if there were hidden cameras all over his house then LE would have found them during their search and they would have pressed charges against SP for voyerism on Susan. But they did not because they could not determine that Susan was unaware that she was being filmed.

I would like to hear a better explanation of why SP was not charged with voyerism on SP. I know I never will but it is just interesting to me.
 
passionflower said:
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.........
Click to expand...

The Channon Christian and Chris Newsom trial had this warning. At times the cameraman couldn't pan away fast enough and we unfortunately saw crimes scene photos with the deceased victims in them. Very sad when you consider when we do not see what is shown the victims families do. So horrible.

Thanks to everyone who posted updates today.
 
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...

This trial is NOT about people walking down the street.
 
I think he might have been charged for voyeurism against Susan if Susan was here to testify that she wasn't aware of those pictures being taken and hadn't permitted it.
 
Sulamith said:
I have not read anything about a hidden camera. I see where SP filmed Susan in "everyday poses". But I also read where he filmed Susan and Josh kissing in their bedroom. Did they not close their door? SP states he saw Susan inserting a tampon. Was the door not closed? SP mentions that he filmed Susan at work. Did she not know or did he have some super lens on his video camera? IDK. I was thinking if there were hidden cameras all over his house then LE would have found them during their search and they would have pressed charges against SP for voyerism on Susan. But they did not because they could not determine that Susan was unaware that she was being filmed.

I would like to hear a better explanation of why SP was not charged with voyerism on SP. I know I never will but it is just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

Even for sp that is a new low. There may well have been cameras and he removed them. We don't know what was removed, disposed of and destroyed soon after Susan went missing.
 
Sulamith said:
I have not read anything about a hidden camera. I see where SP filmed Susan in "everyday poses". But I also read where he filmed Susan and Josh kissing in their bedroom. Did they not close their door? SP states he saw Susan inserting a tampon. Was the door not closed? SP mentions that he filmed Susan at work. Did she not know or did he have some super lens on his video camera? IDK. I was thinking if there were hidden cameras all over his house then LE would have found them during their search and they would have pressed charges against SP for voyerism on Susan. But they did not because they could not determine that Susan was unaware that she was being filmed.

I would like to hear a better explanation of why SP was not charged with voyerism on SP. I know I never will but it is just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

When Susan and Josh lived briefly with Steve to save some money for an apartment as newlyweds, they lived in a dining room with a curtain over the doorway. There wasn't a separate bedroom available for them to use.

I didn't read the many-page documents released on Monday describing the picture and videos Steve took...I just couldn't stomach reading about the depths of Steve's evil and filth. But I've read discussions about the documents, and saw comments where people said that Steve "modified a mirror" and slid it under a closed/locked bathroom door so he could see Susan using the toilet. I'm assuming that's how the "tampon" thing happened.

Also, when Susan and Josh briefly lived with Steve at the beginning of their marriage, Steve was living in a different house than his current house. This was in 2001 or 2002. He may have had hidden cameras at his old house many years ago.
 
If there are lawyers here, I am wondering if the minor girls and/or their parents can sue him civilly for an invasion of privacy. In states where I have lived, it is illegally to videotape someone without their consent. Perhaps this is not the case in WA but if it is, I hope they can sue, and take him for everything he's worth - house, storage unit, car, future earnings in prison.
 
Kimster said:
Is the trial continuing today?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Been out of touch a bit. What I do wonder is how come all the hippies that live in this neck of the woods are not all over this trial. I love the NW,but sometimes peeps care more about hugging trees than protecting children.
 
Trial is postponed until Monday due to Judge Culpepper's schedule conflicts.
 
seattlechiquita said:
I don't know. Been out of touch a bit. What I do wonder is how come all the hippies that live in this neck of the woods are not all over this trial. I love the NW,but sometimes peeps care more about hugging trees than protecting children.
Click to expand...

LOL, if they are true hippies, they wouldn't likely hang with the technology and high electro-magnetic radiation so much. I guess that makes me a pseudo-hippie? I LOVE this information technology. ~ But I still compost our kitchen waste in my organic garden. Does that count? :)
 
Well pooh, no tammi smith trial and no SP trial. I guess I have no excuse not to clean the toilets.

Dang!
 
epiphany said:
On stand, Detective Sanders who served search warrant on Defendant's home:

-disc was in box in master bedroom

-3 sub-folders containing voyeurism images from original disc: labeled-taking bath 1; taking bath 2; open window-back house
Click to expand...

Wow! What an idiot. He couldn't even code them. The cops were probably very appreciative he did that.

tezi said:
Nothing like being a Captain Obvious when labeling your *advertiser censored* there Stevie Boy....
Click to expand...

:giggle:

hollyblue said:
JFYI, there will be no court tomorrow or Friday, but again on Monday.
Click to expand...

Thanks

Sulamith said:
I have not read anything about a hidden camera. I see where SP filmed Susan in "everyday poses". But I also read where he filmed Susan and Josh kissing in their bedroom. Did they not close their door? SP states he saw Susan inserting a tampon. Was the door not closed? SP mentions that he filmed Susan at work. Did she not know or did he have some super lens on his video camera? IDK. I was thinking if there were hidden cameras all over his house then LE would have found them during their search and they would have pressed charges against SP for voyerism on Susan. But they did not because they could not determine that Susan was unaware that she was being filmed.

I would like to hear a better explanation of why SP was not charged with voyerism on SP. I know I never will but it is just interesting to me.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the prosecution may be avoiding the Susan issue altogether. They may be concerned that on appeal the defense could claim that it was unfair to DSP to connect him to such a high profile crime."

What time does court start on Monday EST? Also, would somebody post a link on Monday to a live coverage site please?
 
West Valley police expected to testify in Powell trial today
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=20397300
Week two of the voyeurism trial for Steven Powell gets underway this morning in Washington State.

One or two members of the West Valley City Police Department are expected to testify, along with Steven Powell's estranged daughter, Jennifer Graves.
Click to expand...
That station says it will be live streaming the trial today...

ETA: I can't find the live stream.. :-/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 402 (members: 166, guests: 236)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
236
Total visitors
402
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,341
Messages
18,252,898
Members
234,630
Latest member
Marquello
Back
Top