In-law 'involved' in Utah woman's disappearance, police say
WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah — For the first time, Utah police said they believe Susan Powell's brother-in-law was “heavily involved” in getting rid of her body.
West Valley police said the focus shifted to Michael C. Powell after Josh Powell killed the couple's two boys and himself in a deliberately set house fire 15 months ago.
Police held a news conference on Monday to say they are closing the active investigation of Susan Powell's disappearance citing a lack of leads. They are also releasing the case file, which includes details that have been kept under wraps since Powell vanished in 2009. Police have said they would reopen the Susan Powell case if they get new information.
Michael Powell killed himself Feb. 11 by jumping from a parking garage in Minneapolis.
Police based their suspicion in part on a car Michael Powell left at an Oregon junkyard only weeks after Susan Powell disappeared. The junkyard is about 200 miles from a forest outside Salem, Ore., where authorities searched last week, looking for a body. The search turned up nothing, and police said they ran out of clues.
Deputy West Valley police Chief Michael Powell — no relation — said authorities believe Josh Powell killed his wife, and that his brother later got involved in a cover-up. Michael Powell denied any wrongdoing while under investigation.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lawmakers press Veterans Affairs for improved access to rural health care
- IRS audits of businesses reach 8-year low
- Gag order challenged in W.Va. mine disaster case
- Los Angeles police kill man in struggle captured on video
- Supreme Court justices split on states’ panels to prevent gerrymandering
- Natural gas royalties lawsuit hinges on transaction date
- 2 W.Va. coal operators sentenced in scheme
- White House won’t snub pro-Israel lobby
- Supreme Court’s health care law ruling worries 34 states
- GOP senators pledge help if court bars health care law subsidies
- No signs of deal on Homeland funding