Cox Family Press Conference - 15 Feb 2010

[PickieChickie]

I think LE would have helped to insure Susan's picture was on milk cartons by now, if they thought the evidence indicated she had been taken in such a way that she is still out there somewhere.

I think they'd have encouraged specific kinds of searching and Chuck Cox and many others would be searching along major highways every single day if they thought there was more than a gnat's chance that's where she could be found. The nature of what we have and have not been told rules out a lot of scenarios for me.

We are getting a pretty confusing message if you ask me! If they really think Susan is alive and being held hostage, every minute counts and increasing the reward would be the best way to get her back alive (if you ask me).

 

[hollyblue]

I am pretty certain Susan did not want anyone telling her "what to do". She had enough of that with Josh... what she wanted was for the person she thought she married to reappear and for her marriage to work. Telling an abused woman what she needs to do is not the way to help. The way to help is to be a friend that she feels she can trust without judgement to tell her story. It's a very sad and personal story for an abused woman. And NO, abused does not mean physical!!! It's a pattern, a pattern of power and control. It's on the same level with torture...

From what I've heard and read, Susan was just starting to tell people openly what was happening in her marriage. Josh was starting to lose the control he held over her. When a women is mentally ready to move on and the psychological torture no longer works is the EXACT time she is the most vunerable to the physical parts and murder... It's a total loss of control...

Like father like son.... I pray those Coxes are able to affect change in Washington's laws for grandparents...

ITA. What makes it more absurd and troubling is the fact that once they get rid of the person, they get rid of the control over that person. Go figure....so what do they do, they find someone else...like the children or another relationship. Papa Steven come to mind?

 

[LaLaw2000]

I do not believe for one moment that Susan was abducted and is being held anywhere. She has been murdered, IMO, by JP.

Again, I will never understand the 'friends' and neighbors helping Josh. A true firiend would not. And that is just my real heartfelt opinion.

 

[PickieChickie]

I do not believe for one moment that Susan was abducted and is being held anywhere. She has been murdered, IMO, by JP.

Again, I will never understand the 'friends' and neighbors helping Josh. A true firiend would not. And that is just my real heartfelt opinion.

The explanation of some helping with the move was they wanted to make sure Susan's things were packed up neatly and with respect and that they wanted to look and listen for clues to give to the police.

No doubt each person has/had different reasons, ones which could range from hoping to appear on TV to wanting to get him out of their neighborhood as soon as possible to having an overpowering desire to be in the presence of a potential murderer.

Is it a good thing that all these people chipped in to help so that the packing of the boxes and loading of the truck took a minimal amount of time which then enabled Josh to get back to Charlie and Braden quicker?

If people really think JP is a murderer, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the more time he is away from Charlie and Braden, the better?

The factors to weigh, when making a decision as to whether or not to help Josh, are complex.

What would the results have been if not one person helped him move? If he felt nobody would help him, would he have come to West Valley City to clear out the house? WE WILL NEVER KNOW!

 

[Gin]

I do not believe for one moment that Susan was abducted and is being held anywhere. She has been murdered, IMO, by JP.

Again, I will never understand the 'friends' and neighbors helping Josh. A true friend would not. And that is just my real heartfelt opinion.

Truer words have never been spoken. I could never assist a "husband" who cared so little about a missing wife that he couldn't be bothered to talk to the police...and was very busy packing up and moving on with his life. It's like she never existed. J's behavior is just despicable.
In life there just have to be a few boundaries of common decency. Refusing to enable a man like this is one to me.

 

[grayjay]

Maybe they need to increase the reward for the person who can get Josh to spill his guts and turn himself in.

Where are those folks who picket abortion clinics anyway? We need them in front of the entrance to the SP gated community, with signs that say "wife killer" but maybe with something misspelled on the signs so they don't look too smart.

:jester:

 

[PickieChickie]

Maybe they need to increase the reward for the person who can get Josh to spill his guts and turn himself in.

Where are those folks who picket abortion clinics anyway? We need them in front of the entrance to the SP gated community, with signs that say "wife killer" but maybe with something misspelled on the signs so they don't look too smart.

This has been my point all along. There is no way under the sun that JP hasn't confided in someone. Clearly, $11,000.00 isn't enough to make them talk. Why it is the friends and family of Susan Powell can't grasp the fact that MONEY TALKS, is beyond my ability to comprehend unless they don't want money going to who they suspect is the person who would ultimately collect the reward: one Steve POWELL!

If JP has confided in his father, and the reward was increased to a substantial amount like let's say $100,000.00 and Steve POWELL did betray JP's confidence and fulfill the requirements and was given the reward money, Steve Powell could turn around and use that money to fight the Cox's efforts to gain custody of the boys.

 

[Mesmerized]

The whole problem is the TITLE some nit wit came up for this scenario: Domestic Violence!

...[snipped]...

What women need to be made aware of is that DOMESTIC CONTROL is NOT acceptable!

I agree that we need more awareness/education programs focused on the warning signs of a controlling personality in a relationship. This site has a detailed list of potential warning signs of potential abusers that includes controlling behavior:

http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Abuser/signs.htm

"Controlling Behaviour
Controlling behaviour is often disguised or excused as concern. Concern for your safety, your emotional or mental health, the need to use your time well, or to make sensible decisions. Your abuser may be angry or upset if you are 'late' coming back from work, shopping, visiting friends, etc., even if you told him/her you would be later back than usual. Your abuser may question you closely about where you were, whom you spoke to, the content of every conversation you held, or why you did something he/she was not involved in. As this behaviour gets worse, you may not be allowed to make personal decisions about the house, clothing, going to church or how you spend your time or money or even make you ask for permission to leave the house or room. Alternately, he/she may theoretically allow you your own decisions, but penalise you for making the wrong ones. Concern for our loved ones to a certain extent is normal - trying to control their every move is not."

I like that it explains how the abuser/controller will "justify" the behavior. These are the lies women fall for, time and time again.

 

[grayjay]

This has been my point all along. There is no way under the sun that JP hasn't confided in someone. Clearly, $11,000.00 isn't enough to make them talk. Why it is the friends and family of Susan Powell can't grasp the fact that MONEY TALKS, is beyond my ability to comprehend unless they don't want money going to who they suspect is the person who would ultimately collect the reward: one Steve Cox!

If JP has confided in his father, and the reward was increased to a substantial amount like let's say $100,000.00 and Steve Cox did betray JP's confidence and fulfill the requirements and was given the reward money, Steve Powell could turn around and use that money to fight the Cox's efforts to gain custody of the boys.

:jester: I was kind of more thinking every unemployed dude in Puyallup, Tacoma, and all around accosting POI in mens' rooms of gas stations or whatever, following him everywhere and harassing him. Maybe a little arm twisting nobody sees like that he used on Susan? It's not illegal if it's for financial gain. :jester:

J/K!!!!!!

 

[PickieChickie]

:jester: I was kind of more thinking every unemployed dude in Puyallup, Tacoma, and all around accosting POI in mens' rooms of gas stations or whatever, following him everywhere and harassing him. Maybe a little arm twisting nobody sees like that he used on Susan? It's not illegal if it's for financial gain. :jester:

J/K!!!!!!

The best, legal way to "harass" JP would be to post flyers all around his community with HIS picture on it asking people to call the police if they have seen him doing anything suspicious! Lol!

 

[omegagal]

The whole problem is the TITLE some nit wit came up for this scenario: Domestic Violence!

The following acts are NOT violent:

A husband forcing his wife to grow a vegetable garden if she wants to feed her family vegetables
A husband not allowing the wife to use the family vehicle whenever she desires
A husband changing the pin number on the family bank account
A husband not allowing the wife to use the computer
A husband bribing the children with cake in an attempt to get them to not go to church
A husband making his wife ride 14 miles round trip on a bike to and from work
A husband not allowing his wife to purchase the groceries she wants to buy
A husband not allowing his wife to have her own vehicle
A husband getting the children out of bed at night by saying, "Your mommy is so mean. Come get out of bed!"

In California, it is a FELONY for a husband to NOT allow the wife to use the telephone to call 911~!! Yet, that isn't an act of violence. So, women who are mislead into thinking VIOLENCE has to occur for them to be a victim (under the terms set forth as considered abusive under Domestic Violence) will NOT realize she is a victim of DOMESTIC CONTROL.

People associate the word ABUSE with VIOLENCE.

Some people have the misconception that the police and social workers cannot be called when DOMESTIC CONTROL occurs when in fact this is NOT the case. Social workers and law enforcement officers are specifically trained to recognize the symptoms of DOMESTIC CONTROL and upon hearing someone describe the acts as listed above, would in fact realize this woman was in a very dangerous situation. As mandated reporters, they would be required to file a report which would result in a follow up investigation by the department of children's services during which the wife (victim) and children would be questioned and, based on the outcome of the investigation, advice would be given to the woman as to what she should do!

Of course you do NOT call 911 and say: "I'd like to report my neighbor's husband is making her ride her bike 14 miles round trip to and from work because he's mad at her and won't let her drive the family van!" Instead, you telephone on the business line and ask that an officer call you (or) call the department of children's services and ask to speak to a social worker during which time you express your many concerns in detail. Upon hearing such a report, a police officer would be required to either make a home visit or report your information to the department of social services. Upon receiving such a report, the department of children's services is required by law to investigate the matter.

The syndrome should NOT be called Domestic Violence as it is commonly referred to. It should be called DOMESTIC CONTROL!

When people talk about starting a foundation to make people aware of domestic violence, they are continuing to promote the misconception that there has to be VIOLENCE involved!

Suddenly, because there was one incident of violence, now Susan was a victim of Domestic Violence, according to the term.

The fact is, Susan was a victim of DOMESTIC CONTROL~!!!

Awareness about domestic violence is already out there. What about awareness of DOMESTIC CONTROL?

Women already know that it is illegal for a husband to be violent, to hit, push, choke, slap, pull hair, etc.

What women need to be made aware of is that DOMESTIC CONTROL is NOT acceptable!

The definition of Domestic Violence (from the National Center for Victims of Crime)

Definition
Domestic violence constitutes the willful intimidation, assault, battery, sexual assault or other abusive behavior perpetrated by one family member, household member, or intimate partner against another. In most state laws addressing domestic violence, the relationship necessary for a charge of domestic assault or abuse generally includes a spouse, former spouse, persons currently residing together or those that have within the previous year, or persons who share a common child. In addition, as of 2007, a majority of states provide some level of statutory protection for victims of dating violence. For more information on laws pertaining to domestic violence, please see the GET HELP bulletin, Domestic Violence and the Law.

 

[PickieChickie]

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS: STATE OF UTAH
(Comment: I would suspect this is standard in all states.)

Some of the most frequently asked questions about protective orders are:

Who may file a protective order?
In order to file a protective order for yourself, you must meet the following requirements:
Be emancipated or at least 16 years old,
Be a victim of abuse or domestic violence (which includes stalking),
Have one or more of the following relationships with the abuser:
Lives or has lived in the same residence,
Have a child or unborn child in common,
Be related by blood or marriage.

(Any interested party may also file a protective order on behalf of a minor child who has either been abused or who is in danger of immediate abuse.)

Where do I file a protective order?
If you are filing a protective order for yourself, you should file it in the District Court of the county where you or the other party resides or in the county where the abuse occurred. If you are filing a protective order on behalf of a minor child, you must file it in the Juvenile Court generally of the county where the child resides or where the abuse occurred. To find the District court for your area, click here.
What about my children? Are they protected? Your children may be protected in one of two ways. If you are a victim of abuse and are filing a protective order for yourself, you may include protection for your children at the same time. If you have not been a victim of abuse yourself, you or any other interested party may file a protective order on behalf of your children. Note: If you know of or suspect abuse to any child (even if they are not your own), you MUST report the abuse to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). In addition, a child who has been abused or who is suspected of having been abused, may be appointed an attorney (called a guardian ad litem). This attorney’s job is to represent the child, not you or the alleged abuser.
What is abuse and domestic violence? Domestic violence includes abuse and, in general, is physically harming or threatening to harm another person. It also includes placing another in fear of physical harm. Domestic violence may include one or more of the following and other similar actions:

Physical or sexual assault, such as hitting, punching, pushing, shoving, choking, kicking, threatening with a weapon, forcible rape or sodomy,
Intimidation to the point of placing you in fear,
Electronic communication harassment,
Holding you against your will, and
Stalking.

Do you need more than one incident of domestic violence?
No. Unlike the civil stalking injunction which does require more than one incident, a protective order may be filed after only one incident of domestic violence (unless the only domestic violence is stalking, in which case you would need to have two or more incidents).
How long does a protective order last? The answer depends on whether you have filed an adult protective order or a child protective order. The protective portions of the adult protective order will last until further order of the Court but the one who filed may ask that it be dismissed at any time and the one who it is against may ask for a review after two (2) years. The non-protective portions of a protective order (custody, visitation, etc.) may only last for up to 150 days. All provisions of a child protective order only last 150 days unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Is a protective order valid statewide?
In short, yes. A protective order issued in the state of Utah is valid and enforceable statewide. In addition, it should be enforceable in all other states as well.

If I got an order of protection from another state, is it valid in Utah?
Yes. Local police departments should enforce an order of protection from another state. However, if you plan on staying in Utah, you should go through the process of getting it recognized by Utah.

May I get help filling out the paperwork?
Yes. Utah law requires that court clerks assist in filling out the paperwork. However, there are many other resources as well. In Salt Lake County, the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake will assist you fill out all the paperwork at the courthouse. Elsewhere in the state, victim advocates may assist with the paperwork, although you will have to fill them out and sign them yourselves. Victim advocates are generally located at the local police department or local shelter. To find an advocate or a shelter, please call the DV Link Line at 1-800–897-LINK (5465) or visit online at www.udvc.org. Finally, in addition, the Utah Courts have put the forms on their Online Court Assistance Program (OCAP) (www.utcourts.gov/ocap). After having you input all the needed information, this program will personalize and prepare all the paperwork needed to file a protective order.

What happens after I fill out & file the paperwork?
After filling out and filing the paperwork, the judge will decide whether to sign a temporary order to protect you from further abuse or domestic violence. In addition, the person you are filing against must be “served” meaning s/he must get a copy of the paperwork and any temporary orders signed so they are aware of what you are asking. “Service” is generally done by the sheriff’s and/or a constable.

Do I have to go to a hearing?
Yes. Utah law requires that a hearing being scheduled within twenty (20) days. You must appear at that hearing to explain to the judge why a protective order is needed. If you do not show up at the hearing, the judge will likely dismiss your case.

What will happen at the hearing?
At the hearing, you will get a chance to tell the judge why you think a protective order is needed. You should be prepared with anything you have to support your side, such as police reports, witnesses, etc. After you are done, the other side will get an opportunity to ask you questions about what you said. Then, the other side will get a chance to tell the judge why a protective order is not appropriate and present any evidence they have to support their reasons. You will then get to ask them questions about what they said. Then the judge will make a determination if a protective order is needed and either enter the order or dismiss the case.

Do I need an attorney at the hearing?
No. You are not required to have an attorney at the hearing. However, we would recommend that you do. It is a good idea to have someone who is familiar with the law and the court system to help you at the hearing. You may be able to get help free of charge from the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake if you are in Salt Lake County, or from Utah Legal Services in all other areas of the state. You should contact them to see if they may help. If they can't help you, you may still hire an attorney to help you.

How May I Stay Safe?
If you do not feel safe, you should be prepared should you need to leave quickly. Some suggestions follow:
Pack a suitcase with toiletries, extra house and car keys, a change of clothing for you and your children. Store all this with a friend or neighbor.
Have the following items in an easy to locate place: medicine, identification, money, checkbook and savings book, birth certificates, Social Security numbers, address book, protective order and other legal papers.
Know exactly where you will be going: family, friend, police or shelter.
If you don’t have time to gather these items and you are going to be hurt, call 911and get out. Shelters have emergency provisions.

For more detailed information, you may contact a victim advocate who may discuss ways for you to keep yourself safe. In addition, you may get information from the Utah Domestic Violence Council. You may contact them at 801-521-5544 or online at http://udvc.org

http://www.utahlegalservices.org/public/self-help-webpages/domestic-law-handbook

 

[DomCasual]

Okay, I have a sincere question.

When I think of domestic abuse, there is always a measure of power that's involved with the situation - and the abuse occurs when the abuser exercises that power. Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is physical abuse of a woman by a man. As has been pointed out here, there are many other forms of abuse; but the common thread in all of them seems to be someone using their power to abuse someone with less power, as it pertains to the means of abuse. Maybe that power involves the economic dynamic of the marriage. Maybe it involves the kids. Maybe it's social. But there's power. The power provides the abuser with leverage. Leverage is used as a weapon.

I probably didn't articulate that very well, but hopefully you get the idea.

So, in the case of Josh and Susan Powell - why would a person in Susan's position allow herself to be victimized by someone like Josh?

There doesn't seem to be much physical difference between them. Josh definitely isn't an opposing physical specimen. My guess is that he outweighs her by 30 pounds, if that. So, I can't imagine his getting in her face would be all that intimidating.

It's not like he held their economic situation over her head - she was clearly the bread winner in the family. There is no power there, at least for him.

I wouldn't think that he'd have many options with the kids. In custody situations, Utah's laws are like most states - the power generally lies on the side of the mother. Unless there is something we don't know about, the best he could have hoped for in a divorce would have been visitation. If he wanted to move back to live with Daddy - fine. The kids would have stayed here, with Susan.

Many of you have made comments, such as, "That poor woman!" when referring to Susan. And referring to her friends and family, there have been lots of comments like, "They should have seen the signs of abuse!" So, I guess my question is this. Why? Of course, now we have the benefit of hindsight. She's gone, and he very likely is responsible. Clearly, there was cause for worry. But prior to December 6th, what exactly should her friends have recognized? I know lots of women who are married to knuckleheads. I wouldn't want to trade them places, certainly - but I don't really fear for their safety.

And please don't get defensive about this. I'm not trying to be pretentious in asking it.

 

[RayO]

Okay, I have a sincere question.


So, in the case of Josh and Susan Powell - why would a person in Susan's position allow herself to be victimized by someone like Josh?

Apparently she was sincere in wanting to "save their marriage". Naively, it turns out.

Many of you have made comments, such as, "That poor woman!" when referring to Susan. And referring to her friends and family, there have been lots of comments like, "They should have seen the signs of abuse!" So, I guess my question is this. Why? Of course, now we have the benefit of hindsight. She's gone, and he very likely is responsible. Clearly, there was cause for worry. But prior to December 6th, what exactly should her friends have recognized? I know lots of women who are married to knuckleheads. I wouldn't want to trade them places, certainly - but I don't really fear for their safety.

Just because JP was a jerk, no. But how about her mentioning that if she ever was found dead, it was not a suicide because she wouldn't leave her kids? Her parents provided her a cell phone just in case something should happen. Not sure what something they were thinking about, but on whatever occasion there was physical abuse it was enough for them to believe it, or something worse, could happen later. Certainly she would not want to spill the beans to everyone at work and church, so maybe noone had enuf info to know the seriousness, but did she confide in a few people?. I wonder how many of those things she told to the marriage counselor? Was the counselor trained to put two-and-two together? Do they interview the husband and wife in private, separately? Are such controlling behaviors so common, and the violence escalation so rare that it was worth the risk to OK a plan to have her give him 1.5 years to change?

 

[RubyRed]

"Susan told me things. She told friends things too. Now we know it was a scarier and bigger problem than we'd realized," Jennifer said.

Asked if there was anything different she feels she could have done, Jennifer said, "Susan is not a weak woman. She was trying to put her marriage back on track. There was a great deal of effort put into it on her part, but it was not reciprocated by Josh."

The family has said they did not believe, at the time, that Susan was in any physical danger. Had they known all the pieces they know now, they may have felt differently.


http://www.examiner.com/x-34328-Sea...roblems-were-bigger-scarier-than-she-realized

 

[grayjay]

Okay, I have a sincere question.

When I think of domestic abuse, there is always a measure of power that's involved with the situation - and the abuse occurs when the abuser exercises that power. Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is physical abuse of a woman by a man. As has been pointed out here, there are many other forms of abuse; but the common thread in all of them seems to be someone using their power to abuse someone with less power, as it pertains to the means of abuse. Maybe that power involves the economic dynamic of the marriage. Maybe it involves the kids. Maybe it's social. But there's power. The power provides the abuser with leverage. Leverage is used as a weapon.

I probably didn't articulate that very well, but hopefully you get the idea.

So, in the case of Josh and Susan Powell - why would a person in Susan's position allow herself to be victimized by someone like Josh?

There doesn't seem to be much physical difference between them. Josh definitely isn't an opposing physical specimen. My guess is that he outweighs her by 30 pounds, if that. So, I can't imagine his getting in her face would be all that intimidating.

It's not like he held their economic situation over her head - she was clearly the bread winner in the family. There is no power there, at least for him.

I wouldn't think that he'd have many options with the kids. In custody situations, Utah's laws are like most states - the power generally lies on the side of the mother. Unless there is something we don't know about, the best he could have hoped for in a divorce would have been visitation. If he wanted to move back to live with Daddy - fine. The kids would have stayed here, with Susan.

Many of you have made comments, such as, "That poor woman!" when referring to Susan. And referring to her friends and family, there have been lots of comments like, "They should have seen the signs of abuse!" So, I guess my question is this. Why? Of course, now we have the benefit of hindsight. She's gone, and he very likely is responsible. Clearly, there was cause for worry. But prior to December 6th, what exactly should her friends have recognized? I know lots of women who are married to knuckleheads. I wouldn't want to trade them places, certainly - but I don't really fear for their safety.

And please don't get defensive about this. I'm not trying to be pretentious in asking it.

Dom, being old and gray, I'm going to take a whack at this one, with reservations.

Your question takes me back to the sixties, when someone might ask a similar question about blacks. Why don't they just use the power they have? Why don't they get off their butts and DO something? Or conversely, when they would take control, someone would call them uppity or out of place.

Women have the same problem today. They are called the B's when they take control that males want to keep. They want to be equal, but have not been taught in many cases how that should look.

JP probably told Susan she needed the exercise of the bike ride to work, for example, to stay in as good shape as he was in. If she were really wanting equality and didn't know where it comes from, she'd do this because it would make her feel more equal. But the power is not equal in our society. We have not yet elected a woman president, and that wouldn't be based on ambition, IQ, schooling, etc.

 

[Bartleby]

"Susan told me things. She told friends things too. Now we know it was a scarier and bigger problem than we'd realized," Jennifer said.

Asked if there was anything different she feels she could have done, Jennifer said, "Susan is not a weak woman. She was trying to put her marriage back on track. There was a great deal of effort put into it on her part, but it was not reciprocated by Josh."

The family has said they did not believe, at the time, that Susan was in any physical danger. Had they known all the pieces they know now, they may have felt differently.


http://www.examiner.com/x-34328-Sea...roblems-were-bigger-scarier-than-she-realized

The sad thing is the pieces were all out there to see, but nobody connected the dots. If Susan's friends and family had been able to get together to discuss her relationship with Josh before this happened, maybe they couldn have persuaded her that staying in the relationship was the wrong thing. Unfortunately they may have felt this would be betraying a confidence that Susan had shared with them.

Josh's control of Susan's phone, money and internet usage are enough to wave big warning flags to me. The fact that he held the only keys to their only vehicle is another big warning sign.

I guess most of us are lucky to be in a stable and happy relationship, and find it hard to get our heads round

a) Josh's desire to control every aspect of Susan's life
and
b) Susan's reasons for accepting that level of micro-control.

Only those people who have experienced domestic abuse can truly understand the victim's behaviour.

 

[grayjay]

As my daughter explains it, "He wasn't like that at first and I'm still hoping to get back the man I married." she also tells us that it's her belief in the sacred nature of her marriage vows. There is another component, which doesn't come up as easily, which is that he holds the power through title to their only vehicle and other economic details.

 

[PickieChickie]

As my daughter explains it, "He wasn't like that at first and I'm still hoping to get back the man I married." she also tells us that it's her belief in the sacred nature of her marriage vows. There is another component, which doesn't come up as easily, which is that he holds the power through title to their only vehicle and other economic details.

It is very clear JP used fear to control Susan or she would have bought her own vehicle! No man would make me ride a bike 14 miles round trip to and from work! I'd have called a friend, relative or co-worker to give me a ride or rode the bus or called a cab and would have bought my own vehicle as soon as possible!

We don't know how many times she rode her bike to work, if this was a one time thing. This really confuses me as it appears that many of Susan's ward members are stay at home mothers who could have given her a ride!

 

[omegagal]

Okay, I have a sincere question.

When I think of domestic abuse, there is always a measure of power that's involved with the situation - and the abuse occurs when the abuser exercises that power. Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is physical abuse of a woman by a man. As has been pointed out here, there are many other forms of abuse; but the common thread in all of them seems to be someone using their power to abuse someone with less power, as it pertains to the means of abuse. Maybe that power involves the economic dynamic of the marriage. Maybe it involves the kids. Maybe it's social. But there's power. The power provides the abuser with leverage. Leverage is used as a weapon.

I probably didn't articulate that very well, but hopefully you get the idea.

So, in the case of Josh and Susan Powell - why would a person in Susan's position allow herself to be victimized by someone like Josh?

There doesn't seem to be much physical difference between them. Josh definitely isn't an opposing physical specimen. My guess is that he outweighs her by 30 pounds, if that. So, I can't imagine his getting in her face would be all that intimidating.

It's not like he held their economic situation over her head - she was clearly the bread winner in the family. There is no power there, at least for him.

I wouldn't think that he'd have many options with the kids. In custody situations, Utah's laws are like most states - the power generally lies on the side of the mother. Unless there is something we don't know about, the best he could have hoped for in a divorce would have been visitation. If he wanted to move back to live with Daddy - fine. The kids would have stayed here, with Susan.

Many of you have made comments, such as, "That poor woman!" when referring to Susan. And referring to her friends and family, there have been lots of comments like, "They should have seen the signs of abuse!" So, I guess my question is this. Why? Of course, now we have the benefit of hindsight. She's gone, and he very likely is responsible. Clearly, there was cause for worry. But prior to December 6th, what exactly should her friends have recognized? I know lots of women who are married to knuckleheads. I wouldn't want to trade them places, certainly - but I don't really fear for their safety.

And please don't get defensive about this. I'm not trying to be pretentious in asking it.

Dom - I think the greatest leverage he had with Susan was the children.... if you haven't already, look at the history of Josh's mom and dad and their child custody battle. Statistically dads that fight, win.

I don't believe Josh is a "knucklehead". IMHO he is a narcissistic psychopath.