Steven Powell arrested in Washington State

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I think it very clearly shows that (Susan's) concerns were justified about Steven Powell, it supports everything she said about him," he said. “My daughter did not want those grandchildren in that house. I’m glad they’re not in there now.”
Click to expand...

The judge ruled that not only can the diaries not be released, but any copies previously released to the media or the public have to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Kirsi Hellewell, Susan's best friend, said she was glad Steve Powell was arrested but also shocked at what police found.

"I had no idea. I thought I had seen the depths of what Steve Powell had been to. But I had no idea," she said.
Click to expand...

Josh Powell's poor me attitude
"I did not kill my wife. I have never abused her. I have cooperated with law enforcement in investigating her disappearance," Josh Powell said in court papers.

Josh Powell said because of claims made by Cox, he has "created an all-out national media campaign against me, and in my view, Susan." He also claimed that a purple ribbon campaign started by Cox has turned into a "harassment campaign" against him.
Click to expand...

BBM - Not according the WVPD.
 
RubyRed said:
In addition to the images of the victims, detectives found images of Steven Powell himself that are "sexual in nature and include images of him nakes, images of his genitals, and images of him masturbating," charging documents state.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52629435-78/powell-images-steven-susan.html.csp

Okay, just lost my appetite.
Click to expand...

vomit-girl-vomit-puke-sick-smiley-emoticon-000651-large.gif
 
It might be possible that the search is halted ... for now. Possibly they are waiting to see if one of the P's crack under this new pressure and actually reveal her location. Would save a lot of money for LE if they would.

Please, please, please. Let Susan be found! She deserves her dignity; and her family deserves to have her.
 
hollyblue said:
I do not feel good about the possibility of his being out and allowed to possibly "haunt" or... etc the Cox's.



WTH is this suppose to mean...voyeurism is a CRIME?!!
Click to expand...



I've read elsewhere that the photos of Susan she was clothed. And since it was in his own home, I would guess that would come into it. Maybe she was unaware she was being photographed, but since she was dressed it would be hard to make a charge stick. Otherwise all candid photos could be termed vyourism.
 
hollyblue said:
I do not feel good about the possibility of his being out and allowed to possibly "haunt" or... etc the Cox's.



WTH is this suppose to mean...voyeurism is a CRIME?!!
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal to take photo's of people without their permission in general, just when those pictures cross a line- naked children, women on the toilet that kind of thing- The pictures of Susan are creepy but she clearly was fully clothed- id imagine they were a bit obsessive but didn't cross into illegal.
 
mysteriew said:
I've read elsewhere that the photos of Susan she was clothed. And since it was in his own home, I would guess that would come into it. Maybe she was unaware she was being photographed, but since she was dressed it would be hard to make a charge stick. Otherwise all candid photos could be termed vyourism.
Click to expand...


Right. Mostly likely standard "surveillance photos". Countless thousands of people have surveillance cameras in or on their homes. For the most part, it's entirely legal. ... It's "creepy", at the very least, in this context, though. And I'm glad for the Coxes that SP disgusting comments about Susan are so thoroughly undermined by this hard evidence.
 
hollyblue said:
I think & HOPE it's the whole schmeer.
Click to expand...

I thought cash bond meant you have to have the whole amount and 10% meant just that. A bail bondsman may require only 10% in order for them to post the whole amount but they will want collateral. I can't see a bail bondsman giving steve a break.
 
If a person expects privacy, et in their own home or a bathroom, shower, or NON PUBLIC area any photo's taken of them is voyeurism.
 
mysteriew said:
I've read elsewhere that the photos of Susan she was clothed. And since it was in his own home, I would guess that would come into it. Maybe she was unaware she was being photographed, but since she was dressed it would be hard to make a charge stick. Otherwise all candid photos could be termed vyourism.
Click to expand...

Right -- it might be hard to prove a case against Susan..

1. If she was clothed

2. If the piccies were taken without her knowledge.

In an innocent situation, I've taken pics without someone's knowledge (family, son, hubby). I'm sure we all do at family gatherings, events, etc. However, I do not take pics of naked children. I guess if you lumped them altogether they might have a case, but I presume Susan's pictures would be thrown out (from what I know so far). Personally, I couldn't call a picture of a fully clothed Susan voyerism. Now if she was in the potty, or something nefarious like that, it's a different story.

MOO

Mel
 
Anne Bremner and Pat Brown on with Vinnie on HLN now. His major story tonight.
 
Lera213 said:
If a person expects privacy, et in their own home or a bathroom, shower, or NON PUBLIC area any photo's taken of them is voyeurism.
Click to expand...


I don't know Washington law but that's probably a bit of an overstatement. If I set up a surveillance camera in my home, even in my bedroom, and my wife is caught on it, fully clothed, doing nothing out of the ordinary...it's not voyeurism (legally speaking), regardless of whether she had an "expectation of privacy".

That concept really came from 4th Amendment law. 4th Amendment doesn't apply to private persons.

Still, it depends on local law.

ETA: OK, see local law below. I was wrong.
 
If there are pictures of Susan not clothed that Steven Powell took of her without her knowing. I'm willing to bet that LE will hold those pictures for the murder trial when there is one.
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

RCW 9A.44.115

Voyeurism.


(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;

(b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;

(c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:

(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;

(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

(e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.

(2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

(a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

(3) Voyeurism is a class C felony.

(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.

(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.

[2003 c 213 § 1; 1998 c 221 § 1.]
Notes:

Effective date -- 2003 c 213: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 12, 2003]." [2003 c 213 § 2.]
Click to expand...

photographing someone in their kitchen or living room would not be a violation since a reasonable person would expect that others on the street could see inside-
 
mysteriew said:
They restricted his travel to certain counties. Doesn't he sometimes travel in his job?
Click to expand...


Without even looking I am betting that he is restricted from travel to countries that do not have an extradition agreement with us. :innocent:
 
believe09 said:
Without even looking I am betting that he is restricted from travel to countries that do not have an extradition agreement with us. :innocent:
Click to expand...

LOL not countries, counties. As in county. I think all the US counties have extradition agreements with each other.
 
kalekona -- thanks for posting the statute. Looks like Lera213 was right (and I was wrong).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 2,343 (members: 181, guests: 2,162)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,162
Total visitors
2,343
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,908
Messages
18,165,163
Members
231,887
Latest member
CooperDeVille
Back
Top