Susan Cox Powell Trial Ending Live Stream Now

[Bernard Gui]

The lawsuit brought by the Cox family against the State of Washington is concluding with each side giving their summations today or tomorrow. It was suspended for a while because of COVID, but resumed two weeks ago under strict health conditions. It is being live-streamed on YouTube. Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. They are asking for a very substantial penalty. If they win, it will set a huge precedent in changing child protection laws. I attended all the sessions before COVID. The Coxes are members our ward.

You can see it here if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXPZrirVOA9fz7DSNmcJqAg/live

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The lawsuit brought by the Cox family against the State of Washington is concluding with each side giving their summations today or tomorrow. It was suspended for a while because of COVID, but resumed two weeks ago under strict health conditions. It is being live-streamed on YouTube. Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. They are asking for a very substantial penalty. If they win, it will set a huge precedent in changing child protection laws. I attended all the sessions before COVID. The Coxes are members our ward.

You can see it here if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXPZrirVOA9fz7DSNmcJqAg/live

The hearing just started a few minutes ago (10:30 a.m. Mountain).  

The audio is very poor.  Pretty much makes listening a waste of time.

Also, it does not sound like the parties are giving closing arguments.  A bit of back and forth with the judge, who is presently reading something.  Nobody is talking.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The lawsuit brought by the Cox family against the State of Washington is concluding with each side giving their summations today or tomorrow. It was suspended for a while because of COVID, but resumed two weeks ago under strict health conditions. It is being live-streamed on YouTube. Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. They are asking for a very substantial penalty. If they win, it will set a huge precedent in changing child protection laws. I attended all the sessions before COVID. The Coxes are members our ward..............................

The evil of Josh Powell and his father was palpable.  It was a major crime to allow Josh Powell to remain free, thus giving him a chance to horribly murder his boys.  Any responsible system would have kept him in jail, or at least have his sons placed in a safe environment.  Child Protective Services (or whatever they call it in Washington State) never has to answer for their negligence or misjudgements.  They hide behind claims of confidentiality.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The lawsuit brought by the Cox family against the State of Washington is concluding with each side giving their summations today or tomorrow. It was suspended for a while because of COVID, but resumed two weeks ago under strict health conditions. It is being live-streamed on YouTube. Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. They are asking for a very substantial penalty. If they win, it will set a huge precedent in changing child protection laws. I attended all the sessions before COVID. The Coxes are members our ward.

Regarding the emphasized portion above, I think we should be very circumspect and cautious.  

I have sometimes complained about news coverage of misconduct committed by members of the Church.  My complaint is that some of these stories place gratuitous emphasis on the individual's membership in the Church, when in fact that membership has essentially no bearing on the misconduct.

Consequently, in the interests of observing the Golden Rule, I think we should refrain from attributing the conduct of Josh Powell to his status as an opponent or critic of the Church.  Absent specific and compelling details and evidence, I don't think we should suggest a causal link between that antagonism and Powell's evil actions. 

I don't think you were doing that, but I thought I'd point out my concern anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2020 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the emphasized portion above, I think we should be very circumspect and cautious.  

I have sometimes complained about news coverage of misconduct committed by members of the Church.  My complaint is that some of these stories place gratuitous emphasis on the individual's membership in the Church, when in fact that membership has essentially no bearing on the misconduct.

Consequently, in the interests of observing the Golden Rule, I think we should refrain from attributing the conduct of Josh Powell to his status as an opponent or critic of the Church.  Absent specific and compelling details and evidence, I don't think we should suggest a causal link between that antagonism and Powell's evil actions. 

I don't think you were doing that, but I thought I'd point out my concern anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have been in every session of the trial before COVID. They are giving their summations as I type. Steve and Josh used their hatred of the Church to poison the minds and control their little boys. There was much testimony to that. He convinced them the "Mormon police" killed their mother and would come and kill them.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The evil of Josh Powell and his father was palpable.  It was a major crime to allow Josh Powell to remain free, thus giving him a chance to horribly murder his boys.  Any responsible system would have kept him in jail, or at least have his sons placed in a safe environment.  Child Protective Services (or whatever they call it in Washington State) never has to answer for their negligence or misjudgements.  They hide behind claims of confidentiality.

It is playing out right now on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXPZrirVOA9fz7DSNmcJqAg/live 

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The hearing just started a few minutes ago (10:30 a.m. Mountain).  

The audio is very poor.  Pretty much makes listening a waste of time.

Also, it does not sound like the parties are giving closing arguments.  A bit of back and forth with the judge, who is presently reading something.  Nobody is talking.

Thanks,

-Smac

There were arguments before the judge before the summations began.

The audio is excellent. Attorney Buck is making the case for the Coxes powerfully and systematically. If I ever have trouble, I want Mr. Buck to be my attorney.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Attorney Buck has left his podium and is directly addressing the jury, so the audio has suffered. I know it is for emotional effect, but unfortunate for viewers.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

Quote

Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. 

Regarding the emphasized portion above, I think we should be very circumspect and cautious.  

I have sometimes complained about news coverage of misconduct committed by members of the Church.  My complaint is that some of these stories place gratuitous emphasis on the individual's membership in the Church, when in fact that membership has essentially no bearing on the misconduct.

Consequently, in the interests of observing the Golden Rule, I think we should refrain from attributing the conduct of Josh Powell to his status as an opponent or critic of the Church.  Absent specific and compelling details and evidence, I don't think we should suggest a causal link between that antagonism and Powell's evil actions. 

Steve and Josh used their hatred of the Church to poison the minds and control their little boys. There was much testimony to that. 

Okay.  So Josh taught his sons to dislike the Church.  The concern I have is characterizng his antagonism toward the Church as a causative factor in his later murdering his sons.  Is that what the testimony sought to do?

I guess I'm leery about news items about serious misconduct in which there is an implicit "Mormonism made him do it" narrative.  Conversely, I want to be cautious about this news item being construed as having an implicit (or even explicit) "anti-Mormonism made him do it" narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

........................ Steve and Josh used their hatred of the Church to poison the minds and control their little boys. There was much testimony to that. He convinced them the "Mormon police" killed their mother and would come and kill them.

I wonder what those little boys thought while Daddy killed each of them with a hatchet.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding the emphasized portion above, I think we should be very circumspect and cautious.  

I have sometimes complained about news coverage of misconduct committed by members of the Church.  My complaint is that some of these stories place gratuitous emphasis on the individual's membership in the Church, when in fact that membership has essentially no bearing on the misconduct.

Consequently, in the interests of observing the Golden Rule, I think we should refrain from attributing the conduct of Josh Powell to his status as an opponent or critic of the Church.  Absent specific and compelling details and evidence, I don't think we should suggest a causal link between that antagonism and Powell's evil actions. 

I don't think you were doing that, but I thought I'd point out my concern anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

State of Washington should lean into it and claim it was demonic possession and they had no way to imprison the demon so they are not liable.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

State of Washington should lean into it and claim it was demonic possession and they had no way to imprison the demon so they are not liable.

Maybe they could get Dr. Stella Immanuel to testify as an expert witness..?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe they could get Dr. Stella Immanuel to testify as an expert witness..?

I like the way you think. We should form a lawfirm. We can call it Catholdaysaint Law and take religious cases. At night we can put on costumes and fight crime.

Edited July 29, 2020 by The Nehor

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  So Josh taught his sons to dislike the Church.  The concern I have is characterizng his antagonism toward the Church as a causative factor in his later murdering his sons.  Is that what the testimony sought to do?

I guess I'm leery about news items about serious misconduct in which there is an implicit "Mormonism made him do it" narrative.  Conversely, I want to be cautious about this news item being construed as having an implicit (or even explicit) "anti-Mormonism made him do it" narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No one has even hinted that "Mormonism made him do it." However, he and his father were virulently anti-Mormon. Their words and actions displayed that. One day, Charlie told his schoolmates that the Mormon police killed his brother. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wonder what those little boys thought while Daddy killed each of them with a hatchet.

That was a significant part of the plainiffs' presentation and reappeared in the summation. The lawsuit is asking for multiple million dollars for each minute the boys suffered in the home before they died. That was between 9 and 12 minutes as determined by expert post-mortem examiners, IIRC.

[Bernard Gui]

The plaintiff counsel has finished his summation and the State's representative is now speaking. Their defense is essentially that no one could have predicted what would happen.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one has even hinted that "Mormonism made him do it." He and his father were virulently anti-Mormon. Their words and actions displayed that. One day, Charlie told his schoolmates that the Mormon police killed his brother. 

I'd agree with smac on this, and not because I'm anti-Mormon or anything (I certainly wouldn't categorize myself that way anyway).  But it appears the hatred for the Church was explicit after the murders, and the teaching to the boys was after the murders.  I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.  May or may not really factor into the reason for such behavior...

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The plaintiff counsel has finished his summation and the State's representative is now speaking. Their defense is essentially that no one could have predicted what would happen.

I don't know why that would matter.  The issue should ismply be, was their reason to conclude the boys were in an unsafe situation.  Surely there was.  

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know why that would matter.  The issue should ismply be, was their reason to conclude the boys were in an unsafe situation.  Surely there was.  

That is the position of the plaintiffs. There were clear indications the boys were in danger and Josh was capable of harming them. At this point, it’s going to be in the hands of the jury.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The plaintiff counsel has finished his summation and the State's representative is now speaking. Their defense is essentially that no one could have predicted what would happen.

 

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know why that would matter.  The issue should ismply be, was their reason to conclude the boys were in an unsafe situation.  Surely there was.  

 

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is the position of the plaintiffs. There were clear indications the boys were in danger and Josh was capable of harming them. At this point, it’s going to be in the hands of the jury.

To play devil's advocate - what clear indications were there that the boys were in danger?  What was the evident motive for murdering his boys?  He was a suspect in murdering his wife, but isn't he innocent until proven guilty?  While the state had reason to believe that he was guilty, did they have reason to believe he would kill his kids too?  Not all suspects are guilty and they have rights too. Should all murder suspects automatically lose custody of their children before trial?  Even if he was proven guilty of murdering his wife, most people who kill their spouses don't kill their children too.  Did the state have any reason to believe that he would do that?  I think we were all surprised and shocked at what happened.  Maybe there are details that I am unaware of. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with smac on this, and not because I'm anti-Mormon or anything (I certainly wouldn't categorize myself that way anyway).  But it appears the hatred for the Church was explicit after the murders, and the teaching to the boys was after the murders.  I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.  May or may not really factor into the reason for such behavior...

Of course, it was not the only nor even the major factor in their evil doing. You would need to here the testimony to understand the roll it played. Josh was a returned missionary. He and Susan were married in the temple. The explicit hatred against the Church started before the murder of Susan in Utah and continued afterwards until their deaths in Washington (Steven died from a heart attack shortly after being released from jail for voyeurism and possession of child pornography and Josh killed himself and his boys in his home). They were sick, evil men.

 

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

To play devil's advocate - what indications were there that the boys were in danger?  He had not yet been tried or found guilty of any crime and what was the evident motive for murdering his boys?  Even if he was proven guilty of murdering his wife, most people who kill their spouses don't kill their children too.  Did the state have any reason to believe that he would do that?  I think we were all surprised and shocked at what happened. 

I can’t reproduce all the evidence here. There are several sources that give details.

Josh was possessive, controlling and emotionally abusive to Susan.  He had recently taken out a large life insurance policy on Susan, he took away her computer and cell phone, and wouldn’t even let her shop for food. She had expressed to friends and written in her diary that if anything happened to her, Josh would have done it. He was the only suspect when she went missing. There were unexplained and very odd circumstances in his home and behavior after her disappearance. For example, his alibi was that he took the boys camping the night she disappeared...at midnight in a blizzard in a December at a state park of which he couldn’t remember the name. In the absence of a body, it was difficult to make charges. She still has not been found. Some say the West Valley police messed up. That’s another story.

There is evidence his father and brother helped remove and hide or destroy her body. The brother has since committed suicide. Josh and the boys then moved from Utah to his father Steven‘s home. It was eventually discovered that the home was, “a house of horrors“ as one officer described, with pornography, extremely violent artwork, and Josh’s adult brother wandering around in a diaper. Explicit surreptitious photos of Susan and neighbor girls were found on Steven’s computer. Steven was obsessed with her and wanted Josh to “share” her with him and do many other unspeakable things. The boys were removed from the home and placed in the Cox’s custody. Steven was convicted on various charges and served several years jail time during which he issued threats against the Cox family. Josh rented a home and set about to present himself as a model father. Hearing in court what he was doing made me feel guilty that I was an inadequate dad. You would want a Josh for your dad!

Eventually Josh was given weekly visitations at supervised and secure facilities. He continually violated the terms of his visitations but was able to manipulate his supervisors into allowing the visits to be in his home  where he had complete control, which was against the State’s policies and guidelines. The walls were starting to close in on Josh as things started to unravel. Information was obtained about some bizarre things in his upbringing and family life. His boys were saying and drawing bizarre and disturbing things in public situations. The precipitating event was an order for him to undergo a psychosexual evaluation after child pornography was discovered on one of his computers. As a result, some of local supporters abandoned him. Some of his 5 computers have yet to be examined because he was very good at encryption. Shortly after this hearing, the murders occurred as he seized the boys from the diminutive middle-aged female social worker when they came to his home for a visit. He locked her out and proceeded to attack the boys with a hatchet, poured gasoline on them and set them on fire while they were still conscious. He and they died about 12 minutes later in the fire and explosion. The woman’s 911 call revealed she didn’t even know the address of the house. 

The Coxes, Josh’s Sister (who was Susan’s best friend), and others were not surprised at what he did. Shocked, yes, but they had given officials warnings the he could and would harm the boys.

The State is claiming they did nothing out of the ordinary, nothing that a reasonable person wouldn’t do. They are blaming the State of Utah for not cooperating with them by not sharing information about the Utah events. There is more to their defense, but that’s the gist of it.
 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[MorningStar]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one has even hinted that "Mormonism made him do it." However, he and his father were virulently anti-Mormon. Their words and actions displayed that. One day, Charlie told his schoolmates that the Mormon police killed his brother. 

My best friend worked at the boys' school and she was devastated by their murder. I listened to the Cold Podcast and was absolutely sickened by Josh and his father. 😠 The CPS worker - ugh. If the visits were required, they should have been in a neutral location. The 911 operator screwed up things too. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know why that would matter.  The issue should ismply be, was their reason to conclude the boys were in an unsafe situation.  Surely there was.  

Yep.

[Bede]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know why that would matter.  The issue should ismply be, was their reason to conclude the boys were in an unsafe situation.  Surely there was.  

When you coming back, dawg?