SL Tribune Article with Steven P. and Susan website created by Josh

[armywife]

armywife:

Have you seen Josh or his boys or his dad in the neighborhood? Do any of your neighbors talk about the case or even seem aware of it? What is the general atmosphere like right now?

Yes, I posted on another thread that I saw JP, SP and the boys at the Silver Creek Park (outside Country Hollow) on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The park was quite busy since it was nice weather.

If you didn't know about him then you would not have even noticed him. Anyone following the case would know immediately by the appearance of JP and SP. They were calling the boys by name and SP went to say "Josh..." but caught him self at the "Jo" and just said "hey...". So he was trying to avoid calling him by name. JP made no attempt to change his appearance himself - same leather jacket, facial hair, medium-dark jeans and white sneakers we have seen him in during interviews and pictures in Utah. The boys were happy playing and didn't ask for their Mom from what I heard. I expected they may have a hard time since there were so many Moms in the park with their children. When my husband deploys my children are very sensitive to seeing soldiers here in uniform so I was thinking that may be a similar situation for them.

The neighbors I am chatty with didn't realize he was so close, or were not up on the case in general. I know several families through my son's class that are in Country Hollow and told 4 about it when he first moved here. They had no idea. I'm sure everyone knows now that the purple ribbons/posters were put up. They did continue purple ribbons up Gem Heights Drive (no posters that I saw) which is the main road here in Silver Creek.

 

[tiredblondy]

It just dawned on me this photo is probably a screen shot from a home video which would explain the poor quality and the strange way JP's face looks.

What I want to know is what is Josh's hand holding onto....not the one around his son but his other hand??

 

[PickieChickie]

What I want to know is what is Josh's hand holding onto....not the one around his son but his other hand??

To me it looks like he is tightly holding a child's sleeved lower arm other than the child in front of him. That strikes me as odd. When you are that close to a fire with a child, you usually want both hands on them. I'm still puzzled by the weird flesh color by Susan's bag that some people think is the child's exposed skin. To me, the skin doesn't go over as far as it should and looks like a hand. There is a chance that there was indeed a hand there and that bag was photo shopped in to cover up something else. I don't know. This photo has some strange things going on with it as though it is two photos combined into one. There is a strange black line on the edge of Susan's pant leg too that shouldn't be there. (Hold down the Ctrl key then repeatedly hit the + key to enlarge the photo to see what I mean.)

 

[hollyblue]

I don't think we can take every word the media posts as fact. Someone just added the word "car" to the set of keys, assuming Susan had her own car, I suspect. Susan and Josh owned a van, as we all know, and if this reporter was being intricately accurate with their details, and there were actually vehicle keys on that set, they would have referred to them as van keys. Having car keys on a key ring when a person doesn't own a car, if in fact there were car keys, could mean a lot of things. I simply think this was an assumption on the part of the author as a set of keys is rarely referred to as "house keys".

If you go through many of the old articles, you'll find that there is an array of reporting on the keys. One of my questions early on. Some articles mention only purse & cell, some purse & keys, some purse, keys and cell. The keys could be only house and various other keys--not vehicle keys. But we can't rule it out. It's easy to just go to the dealership and have a new key made. Also possible she may have done this and a reason for an argument. My questioning of the key issue, is if they were not there? Then the possible scenario of her leaving would be on the table. But no definite anwser to the ? of the keys.

 

[pudd]

Pidgeon Holler

lol! another good one gwenabob :biggrin:

 

[LoveEndsWar]

It looks to me like JP is holding an umbrella? I can't tell if it is his hand or not.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

So...would have Mr. Lawlis bent the rules if Josh or Steven had been the one to hang posters of Susan?

I don't know -- but it's obvious Lawlis enforces the Homeowner's Association rules arbitrarily.

No matter what the HOA rules dictate, It didn't seem to bother Lawlis that "Jaeden's party signs & balloons" remained intact after Susan's flyers & ribbons were removed.

Lawlis excused "Jaeden's signs" by stating they were on county property and not subject to Homeowner Association rules. However, "Private Road" was written on the top of the street signs. Lawlis admitted the signs BELONGED to the HOA. Therefore, Lawlis lied - Jaeden's signs were NOT on county property!

It seems pretty obvious that at least one reason Susan's signs were treated differently from Jaeden's signs & balloons was because Powell had complained and wanted Susan's flyers gone.

If it was simply a matter of breaking HOA rules, ALL the signs should have been treated equally. They weren't -- and I'm sure they won't be in the future.

Oooooh how I hope old man Powell and his cowardly wimp of a son have tons to complain about in the future. The sooner the better!

 

[PickieChickie]

I don't know -- but it's obvious Lawlis enforces the Homeowner's Association rules arbitrarily.

No matter what the HOA rules dictate, It didn't seem to bother Lawlis that "Jaeden's party signs & balloons" remained intact after Susan's flyers & ribbons were removed.

Lawlis excused "Jaeden's signs" by stating they were on county property and not subject to Homeowner Association rules. However, "Private Road" was written on the top of the street signs. Lawlis admitted the signs BELONGED to the HOA. Therefore, Lawlis lied - Jaeden's signs were NOT on county property!

It seems pretty obvious that at least one reason Susan's signs were treated differently from Jaeden's signs & balloons was because Powell had complained and wanted Susan's flyers gone.

If it was simply a matter of breaking HOA rules, ALL the signs should have been treated equally. They weren't -- and I'm sure they won't be in the future.

Oooooh how I hope old man Powell and his cowardly wimp of a son have tons to complain about in the future. The sooner the better!

Balloons and and a sign for a child's birthday party attached to a pole for a one day event, which would have been removed the same day after the party was over, is TOTALLY different than ribbons and fliers attached to trees and posts all over the community.

Are you all trying to say that you think that Mr. Lawless should have rushed out to take down these decorations which were placed so the party goers would know they were at the right place?

I wouldn't be so quick to judge Mr. Lawless. It was these women who deliberately violated the home owner's association rules by plastering the community with posters and ribbons.

It is Mr. Lawless's job to enforce the community's established rules. He did nothing wrong.

These women KNEW the posting of these signs and ribbons was against the rules or they would have approached Mr. Lawless to ask for permission.

If Mr. Lawless had made an exception to the rules, how long do you think he should have allowed them to remain?

Even if Mr. Lawless allowed them to stay for a week, he would still have been viewed as a villain.

If Mr. Lawless allowed them to stay, the community members would have been sent the message that it is acceptable to plaster the community with signs and ribbons and may have started plastering the community with signs, balloons and fliers about their own particular cause.

What about the community member whose little girl has cancer and the young man who needs a kidney transplant or the child's class who is trying to raise funds with a rummage sale?

If everyone in that community started plastering it with signs about their particular cause or event, what would the community look like?

If Mr. Lawless made exceptions for the Susan Powell missing posters and ribbons, he would have had to make exceptions for other people's signs as well. He was not in the position to allow these women to break the rules because it is his job to enforce them.

Let's cast our anger towards Josh Powell who made the posting of these fliers and ribbons necessary, not at Mr. Lawless who was simply doing his job and who could have been fired if he allowed the decorations to remain!

 

[erynne936]

What I want to know is what is Josh's hand holding onto....not the one around his son but his other hand??

I think he may be holding onto his own dark-colored gloves. Like he might have just done something that required more dexterity than thick gloves could afford... and he is holding them together in one hand as he is kneeling down to pose for this picture with the family - just hasn't put them back on yet.

 

[erynne936]

To me it looks like he is tightly holding a child's sleeved lower arm other than the child in front of him. That strikes me as odd. When you are that close to a fire with a child, you usually want both hands on them. I'm still puzzled by the weird flesh color by Susan's bag that some people think is the child's exposed skin. To me, the skin doesn't go over as far as it should and looks like a hand. There is a chance that there was indeed a hand there and that bag was photo shopped in to cover up something else. I don't know. This photo has some strange things going on with it as though it is two photos combined into one. There is a strange black line on the edge of Susan's pant leg too that shouldn't be there. (Hold down the Ctrl key then repeatedly hit the + key to enlarge the photo to see what I mean.)

I believe the little boy's (in green) pant leg got accidentally pushed up when mom put him on her knee for the photo. The flesh area is just his leg. You can see that his pants look rumpled above because they have been pushed up.

Edit: maybe you can't tell they look rumpled, from closer inspection. But I still think his pant leg got pushed up. It's just his bare leg showing.

 

[Foxy Loxy]

On Joshy's website, I think he purposely chose pictures of Susan with different hair styles, color, updo, etc. then made a point to say she changed her hair frequently. Other people have commented - why he would choose such unflattering pictures? And certainly not instantly recognizable photos. All part of his plan to suggest that SHE did something wrong (run off and leave him and the kids). Just another attempt to undermine Susan once again.

 

[armywife]

On Joshy's website, I think he purposely chose pictures of Susan with different hair styles, color, updo, etc. then made a point to say she changed her hair frequently. Other people have commented - why he would choose such unflattering pictures? And certainly not instantly recognizable photos. All part of his plan to suggest that SHE did something wrong (run off and leave him and the kids). Just another attempt to undermine Susan once again.

I thought along the same lines~

"Susan loves to change her hair frequently"

"She is capable of recreating just about any hair style imaginable for both men and women"

I got the idea that he was implying she could be out there, and was able to easily change her look to avoid being seen.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

To me it looks like he is tightly holding a child's sleeved lower arm other than the child in front of him. That strikes me as odd. When you are that close to a fire with a child, you usually want both hands on them. I'm still puzzled by the weird flesh color by Susan's bag that some people think is the child's exposed skin. To me, the skin doesn't go over as far as it should and looks like a hand. There is a chance that there was indeed a hand there and that bag was photo shopped in to cover up something else. I don't know. This photo has some strange things going on with it as though it is two photos combined into one. There is a strange black line on the edge of Susan's pant leg too that shouldn't be there. (Hold down the Ctrl key then repeatedly hit the + key to enlarge the photo to see what I mean.)

No matter how many artifacts in the photo look odd, out of place, or wrong - it doesn't really matter.

There has NOT been one single experienced photographer adept at photo editing who has stated Josh's family campfire picture is a legitimate, original photograph.

ALL those with photo editing expertise agree that Josh's silly photo has been VERY POORLY ALTERED - probably with "Adobe's Photoshop." Photo editors have called Josh's added campfire a laughable attempted hoax because the flames are plunked into the photo so ineptly.

Apparently Josh is so lazy and incompetent he doesn't care enough to do ANYTHING well.

It's no wonder he couldn't hold a decent job even with his self-proclaimed proficiency as a *Quickbooks Certified Pro Advisor with a degree in Business Administration.* _ HA! :laughitup: ROTFL!

 

[PickieChickie]

We ALL know things aren't right about this photo. I finally figured out what it is. Susan's arm is MISSING! There is NO arm grasping Braden around his waist!

Not only that, after carefully inspecting this photo, I have determined there are crop lines around this photo! Look at the jagged edge along the top of Susan's left pant leg along the knee area (on the leg that is sticking up and not touching the snow).

There is also a dark black line on the underside - thigh portion of that leg.

There are also black "spots" between her white cuff and her pant leg.

The color of the snow in that gap between her sleeve and jacket is WHITER than any of the surrounding snow except the snow to the far left of the photo. Because that area behind her is shadowed, that snow should be gray, not white.

There are other things wrong with this photo. But, I'm just trying to point out some new things.

 

[GrandmaTo4]

Balloons and and a sign for a child's birthday party attached to a pole for a one day event, which would have been removed the same day after the party was over, is TOTALLY different than ribbons and fliers attached to trees and posts all over the community.

Are you all trying to say that you think that Mr. Lawless should have rushed out to take down these decorations which were placed so the party goers would know they were at the right place?

I wouldn't be so quick to judge Mr. Lawless. It was these women who deliberately violated the home owner's association rules by plastering the community with posters and ribbons.

It is Mr. Lawless's job to enforce the community's established rules. He did nothing wrong.

These women KNEW the posting of these signs and ribbons was against the rules or they would have approached Mr. Lawless to ask for permission.

If Mr. Lawless had made an exception to the rules, how long do you think he should have allowed them to remain?

Even if Mr. Lawless allowed them to stay for a week, he would still have been viewed as a villain.

If Mr. Lawless allowed them to stay, the community members would have been sent the message that it is acceptable to plaster the community with signs and ribbons and may have started plastering the community with signs, balloons and fliers about their own particular cause.

What about the community member whose little girl has cancer and the young man who needs a kidney transplant or the child's class who is trying to raise funds with a rummage sale?

If everyone in that community started plastering it with signs about their particular cause or event, what would the community look like?

If Mr. Lawless made exceptions for the Susan Powell missing posters and ribbons, he would have had to make exceptions for other people's signs as well. He was not in the position to allow these women to break the rules because it is his job to enforce them.

Let's cast our anger towards Josh Powell who made the posting of these fliers and ribbons necessary, not at Mr. Lawless who was simply doing his job and who could have been fired if he allowed the decorations to remain!

Pickie, I don't disagree at all that the women posted Susan's flyers against the HOA rules. I don't disagree that Lawlis was perfectly within his rights and job description to remove the flyers.

I am just saying that IF there are HOA rules, technically they should be enforced for everyone. Of course Jaeden's birthday signs were different from Susan's flyers. Of course anyone with any logical reasoning would have left the birthday signs up for a day or two.

HOWEVER, I do have a problem with Lawlis' hypocrisy when confronted with the question about why the birthday signs remained. The man could have told the truth. The truth was certainly reasonable, wasn't it? Yet instead, Lawlis flagrantly LIES and says the birthday signs were on county property.

I don't *vilify* Lawlis for doing the job he was hired to do -- I criticize him for unnecessarily LYING!

I have a HUGE problem with hypocritical LIARS!

 

[erynne936]

We ALL know things aren't right about this photo. I finally figured out what it is. Susan's arm is MISSING! There is NO arm grasping Braden around his waist!

Not only that, after carefully inspecting this photo, I have determined there are crop lines around this photo! Look at the jagged edge along the top of Susan's left pant leg along the knee area (on the leg that is sticking up and not touching the snow).

There is also a dark black line on the underside - thigh portion of that leg.

There are also black "spots" between her white cuff and her pant leg.

The color of the snow in that gap between her sleeve and jacket is WHITER than any of the surrounding snow except the snow to the far left of the photo. Because that area behind her is shadowed, that snow should be gray, not white.

There are other things wrong with this photo. But, I'm just trying to point out some new things.

I think Josh most certainly killed Susan, but I don't think this photo is photoshopped.

I don't think Susan's arm is missing. Her hand may be under the little boy's right arm and we can't see it because of his puffy coat.

The line under her right leg? I think it's just a shadow of her leg against the snow from the flash of the camera or the fire.

I think the snow in some places looks whiter because it is less dirty.

I think Josh's photoshop skills amount to some use of blurring, but that's about it. I don't think this whole photo is doctored. :twocents:

 

[LoveEndsWar]

I have zoomed in on the photo and observed this:
1-note how black this part of the pic is.
2-the black part on the side of the child seems to match more closely to the fathers jacket, the childs outfit doesn't look right or the scarf
3-why is the fathers logo & childs logo blurred? the fathers hand(s) look fake/not right. I can't see a wedding ring on his hand..did he usually wear one? the childs hand & arms, scarf weird.
4-fathers shoe definitely just doesn't look right.

 

[LoveEndsWar]

I also think that the black under her leg may very well be the bottom of her coat, not a flash as the above post mentioned possible.

 

[Dal Gal]

He couldn't have. People who live in that community pay a yearly or monthly fee to live there and part of that fee is used to insure that the rules are enforced. The people who have elected to buy a home there know what the rules are and live there because they like them! I would like to see a copy of the community rules. Perhaps the woman who posted the fliers and ribbons is willing to scan a copy or direct us to where we can find them on the Internet. (I don't remember the name of the community at the moment.)

I became a "member" of the HOA website a while back cuz I was curious if there was a limit to the number of people living in a home LOL. My access is coming in handy!

From the Silver Creek master covenants:
Section 6.10 SIGNS. Except for entrance, street, directional, traffic control and safety signs, and such promotional signs as may be maintained by Declarant and Participating Builders, or agents or contractors thereof, or the Association, no signs or advertising devices of any character shall be erected, posted or displayed upon, in or about the Property; provided, however, that one temporary real estate sign not exceeding six square feet in area may be erected upon any Lot or attached to any Living Unit placed upon the market for sale or lease. Any such temporary real estate sign shall be removed promptly following the sale or rental of such Lot or Living Units.

 

[AlexisFresca]

If you go through many of the old articles, you'll find that there is an array of reporting on the keys. One of my questions early on. Some articles mention only purse & cell, some purse & keys, some purse, keys and cell. The keys could be only house and various other keys--not vehicle keys. But we can't rule it out. It's easy to just go to the dealership and have a new key made. Also possible she may have done this and a reason for an argument. My questioning of the key issue, is if they were not there? Then the possible scenario of her leaving would be on the table. But no definite anwser to the ? of the keys.

But they aren't cheap. Where would Susan have got the $ to buy one without Josh knowing? Less she did it using $ from her private account she allegedly had that he didn't know of.

My husband checked into getting a second set of keys for his Ford. It was $80 for the metal key (and if you buy more than one, the second key is only $30. The first key costs more due to set up costs and programming it - theres a chip on it), and another $125-ish for the electronic part of the keychain. Needless to say husband still only has one set of car keys, not wanting to shell out that kind of money.