Talk:Disappearance of Susan Powell

Privacy issues

For sake of the privacy of the family, I think it would be wise to hold off on including any information along these lines until further developments in the case warrant it. Also, along those same lines per WP:ONEEVENT, the name is fine, at least for now. For privacy issues it is good to focus on the event for the time being. Moogwrench (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. What is wikipedia's official stance on privacy in cases like this? --74.179.122.10 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's in the newspapers, it's not private. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Camping trip

Is it correct that the husband last saw his wife in the early hours of 7th of december went on the camping trip then returned on the 7th seems odd to me.92.0.40.230 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Josh Powell killed his wife, tossed her in the trunk, and disposed of her in an unmapped mine shaft in the Utah outback. Or so they say. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Squeaky is most likely correct, but authorities and media for some reason can't and won't say that. Redhanker (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd development related to Susan Powell

Should this be integrated at all, and if so, how? It mentions Susan Powell as one of the women photographed by her father-in-law. Moogwrench (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it probably should be, since it is related to other information relevant to the case, namely that the parents of Susan Powell are seeking custody from the father of her children. Moogwrench (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for copyright violations

I noticed a couple sentences in the article that sounded "news-like" were indeed copy-pasted from a news article. While I removed/rephrased the problem that I found, I haven't examined this article more thoroughly. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"A couple sentences" do not make a copyright violation, and often times are "fair use". =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It should respect copyrighted content guidelines (WP:NFCCEG). The instance I mentioned above did not. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

peak 35,000 hits

check views page, peaked at 35,000 hits. There is lots of news that's not in the article and basic information on Josh and Susan, among others involved in the story. 131.107.0.113 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

New developments (2/16) related to Susan's disappearance

This is mostly a To-Do, but there have been some new developments in local news that more directly relate to Susan's disappearance. These should be converted to prose form and cited appropriately.

• Utah police revealed that more than 400 "disturbing" images depicting popular cartoon characters (many of which are from kid's shows) in sexual situations, as well as 3D computer-generated images depicting sexual activity between parents and their children, were found on Josh's computer back toward the beginning of the investigation. This information was only revealed to a handful of people, and not to the Washington DSHS, before Josh blew up his house.
• One of the Powell children is quoted as having said the following to various people:
  • Describing how to bury an animal so it could not be found, to a member of the staff at his school.
  • Saying to a waitress at a restaurant "Know what happened to my mom?" (reported as though he knew and would have told the waitress had she not been called away from the table).
  • Saying to the Cox family "Mommy is in the mine" and to others, "Mommy was in the trunk".

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can Josh or Steven ever be charged with murder?

West Valley says the investigation of the disappearance is still active, but if it was a murder, it seems that the justice system can't be expected to conclude it was a murder since the main suspect is dead. Still one must wonder why Steven Powell can't be charged for any part he played in the murder. Since Steven falls under jurisdiction of Pierce County, wouldn't PC be able to charge him if they can prove he played a role in the disappearnce, especially since his refusal to cooperate and invoking the fifth amendment strongly suggests he was involved? This is one answer found on the internet?:

If a person commits a murder then commits suicide are they still charged with the crime of murder?

Answer: Tried for murder

No, because you can't charge a dead person. That would be a waste of the court's time to spend tax dollars charging a dead person with a crime.They wouldn't charge a suicide victim with murder any more than they would charge a dead person with murdering someone else.

More accurately, it is because the killer would be unable to appear at trial. Imagine that the killer did not commit suicide, but fled the country. A trial could not be conducted in his absence. He would have to be located first and then tried.

From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_a_person_commits_a_murder_then_commits_suicide_are_they_still_charged_with_the_crime_of_murder#ixzz1wyzIVYHy

Substantial revisions

There have been substantial revisions to this article which fill in many details. Feel free to comment or add new material since much has only been recently made public in 2012. Redhanker (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Family tree

I'm unclear on the reason for the family tree. The relationships described in the text aren't particularly confusing. My primary concern is for innocent people who are not central to the case - one must presume that this adversely impacts their Google search results at a time when they likely would like to disappear into private lives.

I could be convinced otherwise, so I'm not making the edit myself - just raising the question for others more familiar with the situation to discuss.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there's any reason for it. Go ahead and remove it. Bali88 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Has someone changed their opinion and why?

"HL: Well there's been a very big case here in Britain over the past week. The family of a young girl who was murdered Milly Dowler and the personal details of the family details, the father and so on who are completely innocent have appeared both in newspapers and on the internet causing enormous distress and a great deal of anger. How do you protect people like that who have no real experience of being in the public eye and no real need to be taken apart in the public eye."

"JW: Well I don't think you can, I think that those are actually matters of legitimate public interest and so, you know as discomforting as that is to certain people you know the public has a right to know and I think that's very fundamental."

"HL: So if someone's life is wrecked that's just tough luck?"

"JW: It might just be tough luck.....this is, it's a difficult thing but I also think that it's not actually wrecking people's lives. "

Privacy Commission Day 6, Witness 2: Jimmy Wales John lilburne (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)