Posted on 09/23/2011 7:06:00 AM PDT by nuconvert
TACOMA, Wash. -- The father-in-law of a missing Utah woman was charged Thursday with voyeurism and possession of child pornography after police investigating her disappearance came across thousands of images of women videotaped without their knowledge, some of his daughter-in-law, Pierce County authorities said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Check my tagline bump....
Yep, this is that same case.
Maybe she had been getting ready to blow the whistle on this guy when she “disappeared”?
This kind of changes things a bit - now I’m leaning toward this creepy perv being the killer and the son just being a patsy for Daddy.
BOOM.
As a police officer once told me, "all it takes is one WRONG WORD and you will strike someone."
In the addled brain of a perv, he sometimes thinks women want what he is doing - even if they don’t say it out loud. He may have seen her as being sexual because he obviously sees even young girls as sexual objects. Perhaps he conveyed to his son that the wife was a floozie, or maybe both men are just nuts! It still defies logic that the father would admit on camera that he was banging his daughter in law.
So.... have you had time to actually read the article linked in POST 20 ?
I found it very informative.
(Thanks, nuconvert, for the link)
Then consider this. Maybe son was a peeping tom just like dear old dad. Maybe the wife caught him at it, and asked for a divorce or was going to the police.
I can't see a motive for the father-in-law to kill his son's wife.
I can see plenty of motives for the Son to do so.
I notice that the son moved back in with the father after the wife's 'disappearance'. I can't believe the son didn't know about his father's predilections. Is the son looking for the love his father didn't give him? Was the wife competition for that love, considering the Father-in-laws claims about his 'special' relationship with the daughter-in-law?
Here is the original story about the creepy sex stuff.
I realize this is a very disfunctional family - but it would seem odd to me that the son would move in with Daddy if he killed his wife because daddy was banging her.
But, obviously, these two are both mental
Based upon the family’s strident objections, I’m guessing the wife was promiscuous.
There is a distinct possibility the husband taking the kids into the wilderness was:
a. the son providing an opportunity for his father and wife to have a tryst that went bad.
b. the son was weak and couldn’t kill his wife but the father could. The trip was a diversion to get the kids out of the house while the mother was being murdered.
If the father is a voyeur, it’s unlikely he has the courage to act out.
But what do I know, I’m just another person on the Internet who has an opinion.
'Father-in-law, daughter-in-law flirting with each other, maybe some sexual touching or whatever. And I enjoyed it, frankly. '
'We interacted in a lot of sexual ways because Susan enjoys doing that.'
From: Police-search-home-husband-father-law-missing-Utah-mother.
He read his daughter-in-law's teenage diaries. He ENJOYED what he called sexual flirtation (and he was the one who developed fantasies around it).
What is not explained very well by the FIL is why the Daughter in law moved to UTAH to get away from him.
IIRC, the son and DIL have moved away to UTAH to get away from dear old DAD, to UTAH. Pullyallup is in WASHINGTON. I don't think dear old DAD had OPPORTUNITY.
Is there any proof DAD was in WASHINGTON the day she disappeared?
Please don’t misunderstand - I’m not arguing with you - merely bouncing ideas. I do not know enough about this case yet - just thought the idea of going camping in the middle of the night, and then the father in law’s bizarre announcement of his affair with her was too strange to be true. Now with this information about him being a pervert it just seems to be more connected than before.
I think the 'banging' her part was only a fantasy in the father in law's head.
When they were living ALL TOGETHER in WASHINGTON, the father in law seems to have taken the DIL's lack of modesty, or openness with her beauty as 'flirting'. A real man would have either dis-regarded these events or simply told the DIL he felt uncomfortable with her flaunting her sexuality around him.
Since it now seems that the FIL is not a real man, that explains his fantasy about his DIL. I don't believe he ever said they actually had sex. He seemed to believe that eventually it would lead to that.
We are on the same page, my dear FRiend. I could be totally wrong about everything. I post what related info I can find and offer my 'thoughts'. Your comments prompt me to do the research, and I learn from it. I don't have all the answers. Wish I did.
As I have told others many times in the past, when I am right, I learn nothing. It is only when I find I am wrong that I learn something new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.