Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #22

[katydid23]

I can only speak from my own perspective but if I saw my spouse kill my child, I would have no problem killing him. JMO

Of course not. But would your priority be to strangle your spouse for 5 or 6 minutes, or would it be to do CPR and call 911 to try and save your son?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Friends and family are biased, I think we all know that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it is just the way it is. People that know the parties are going to have a stronger alliance to one than the other and VI Trinket's statements and reactions to other posts reflect hers is with CW, IMO. Knowing someone for years and being able to reconcile the events that have occurred with the person you thought you knew doesn't happen easily. Look at Ann Rule's "The Stranger Beside Me." People have various types of relationships (albeit often one-sided) with sociopaths and psychopaths regularly.

I would bet that when all the evidence comes to light we will find out he had a whole lurid secret life that his family were unaware of. They think they know him but usually find out they had NO idea of the real man. Someone who is father to two little girls, and has a pregnant wife, is having an extramarital affair ( at least one is confirmed) and now has a gay man claiming a sexual relationship and another woman who says he choked her during sex and had rape fantasies may not be the good Ole southern boy they once knew.
JMO of course.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, but the defence did that because CW claims that SW strangled them, and they have to go along with his story. It was refused because the coroner would do that anyway.

It was refused because the Judge felt the ME would be capable of gathering the DNA evidence. In past cases, not all evidence was collected or tested. This was the defense's way of making sure that DNA was collected and tested.

The defense has a duty to their client, don't they? If there is proof CW killed the children, then they will build a strategy for his defense. The fact that they had an expert lined up to observe the autopsy tells me they just might believe CW's statements. They also have his complete confession to LE. He may have claimed SW often harmed the children when she got upset. JMO

 

[Bill Carson]

How does one recant a confession when the bodies were found exactly where he said?

Hypothetically, if the judge found that the confession was coerced, then the confession could be thrown out, and any evidence found as a result of that confession could be thrown out as well. That's called fruit of the poisonous tree, IIRC.

This is why the affidavit was careful to note that the location of the bodies (or at least SW's grave) was found prior to his confession and not as a result of his confession.

 

[Bill Carson]

No she does not strike me as someone who could be forced into something she didnt want. I was simply sharing the information I found while scrolling through her page. Also, as a woman who had a high risk pregnancy myself I can understand where it would be a difficult decision on whether or not to have another child. For me, it was a constant back and forth in my head between wanting another baby and not wanting to take the risk again. JMO

I'm a little surprised that they made the announcement so early into the pregnancy. I know with high risk pregnancies, many couples want to get past the first trimester before they tell anybody, much less make a public announcement.

 

[Layla123]

CW's ability to completely "blame" SW for the deaths of the children, makes his behavior and story completely plausible. He blamed her for all of the problems, so of course, "SHE" killed the children. He completely disassociated himself from the crime.

It’s not plausible to me because if she did it, he would want to preserve the evidence proving that she did it, not destroy it. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[MyBelle]

Would you then take your child's and spouse's body and hide them?

I have no idea what I would do after the fact other than panic.

 

[Hazelnutty]

AB 9/13/18
1.Defense has been filing motions with the court that require responses from DA. What will his defense be?
2. DA wants DNA swabs, photos, prints. Why they didn’t do that on the first day? Don’t know.
3. Defense complained DA was leaking information, DA responded that they didn’t. Defense is trying to shift the blame off of C.W.
4. Why does DA want all those prints and photos? DA is trying to cover all bases.
5. Defense wants to videotape everything.
6. DA’s defense of huge media interest is they blame it all on C.W. for going to the press in the first place, pleading with the public to help.
7. Defense requested a special commission to investigate.
8. Thousands of people are involved in this case. No way to determine who leaked. Sources can be anyone from the janitor who finds a document on a desk, to a filing clerk.
9. So much forensics involved in this case, many people will be involved.
10. It is very difficult to get info on this case, everyone is tight lipped.

Viewer Questions
1. Many people are behind C.W. Many people are against SW. Why? The majority back SW. Attorneys will be looking for people who can be fair and impartial to be on jury.
2. Seems like 2 different people did the killing. Wife was buried which shows remorse. The girls were dumped in oil barrels which shows the person who did it really didn’t care too much for them. It’s hard to say what his mindset was, it was an evil act, regardless.
3. What are the patches the Watts and all their friends wear. Supplements to help with energy and weight loss. AB has repeatedly called Thrive for interview, Thrive has refused to accept or return her
calls.
4. What was C.W. thinking during court appearance when he took a long deep breath while charges were being read? Nervous gesture or regret? Jury consultant says, when people take deep breaths, they are preparing for bad news. Deep emotional stress.
5. Have detectives made the decision to drain oil tanks to see if CW placed anything else in there? Needs to be considered. Things they’re looking for that they can’t find. Not sure if they can examine contents of flow of oil when it is flowing from one place to another. Maybe they were drained already, we don’t know. Can’t see the place without being there or flying over, or drone.

Back to show.
11. Jury consultant profiles C.W. His mind moved quickly in beginning, slowed down, later. He rambled, but gave irrelevant information. His affect was off when talking about the children. He’s taking a massive risk by throwing SW under the bus. He may anger the jury. Blaming the victim is a tough dance to do in front of a jury. Can backfire miserably.

Many thanks for this AB summary !

 

[cailleach]

Hypothetically, if the judge found that the confession was coerced, then the confession could be thrown out, and any evidence found as a result of that confession could be thrown out as well. That's called fruit of the poisonous tree, IIRC.

This is why the affidavit was careful to note that the location of the bodies (or at least SW's grave) was found prior to his confession and not as a result of his confession.

Spot On!

 

[Mosaic]

Would you then take your child's and spouse's body and hide them?

@Jennifer17 Exactly!

 

[katydid23]

It was refused because the Judge felt the ME would be capable of gathering the DNA evidence. In past cases, not all evidence was collected or tested. This was the defense's way of making sure that DNA was collected and tested.

The defense has a duty to their client, don't they? If there is proof CW killed the children, then they will build a strategy for his defense. The fact that they had an expert lined up to observe the autopsy tells me they just might believe CW's statements. They also have his complete confession to LE. He may have claimed SW often harmed the children when she got upset. JMO

Would he have let her take the girls out of state for 5 weeks if he thought she hurt the girls when she was upset?

 

[MyBelle]

Hypothetically, if the judge found that the confession was coerced, then the confession could be thrown out, and any evidence found as a result of that confession could be thrown out as well. That's called fruit of the poisonous tree, IIRC.

This is why the affidavit was careful to note that the location of the bodies (or at least SW's grave) was found prior to his confession and not as a result of his confession.

Wow! I didn't even notice that detail. Thanks!

 

[Layla123]

Absolutely. If we see two of the murder charges dropped we'll know they didn't get the results they anticipated and they're dealing with it. It's my own experience that tells me they are confident what will be revealed. JMO.

If CW wanted to prove his innocence, you’d think he would willingly offer his finger and palm prints, to prove he didn’t strangle the girls.

 

[Bill Carson]

True. But if the DA thought those handprints were going to disprove their case, they wouldn't be working so hard to get them, imo.

And if the defense thought those prints were going to clear their client, they'd have handed them over already. Which they haven't.

BBM
True, but...the District Attorney's duty is not to obtain convictions but to see that justice is done.

 

[MyBelle]

It’s not plausible to me because if she did it, he would want to preserve the evidence proving that she did it, not destroy it. Doesn’t make sense.

He did preserve the evidence under her nails, did he not?

Would he have let her take the girls out of state for 5 weeks if he thought she hurt the girls when she was upset?

SW stayed with family didn't she? SW didn't need CW's permission to take the children anywhere.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Yes, and interestingly, the burden of proof is not always "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm not sure what the standard is in Colorado, but in Texas, if the defendant pleads that an exception to a crime applies, then the State has the BOP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply. On the other hand, if the defendant raises an affirmative defense and presents some proof of that, then the defendant has the burden to prove the affirmative defense, but it is only by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is real inside baseball stuff.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 2. BURDEN OF PROOF

I appreciate your explanation. Although, I had to read it a couple times to comprehend it and the first time it reminded me of who's on first. LOL

 

[katydid23]

It’s not plausible to me because if she did it, he would want to preserve the evidence proving that she did it, not destroy it. Doesn’t make sense.

YES. That's one of my biggest problems with his story. If he walked in on his wife strangling those babies, and then he attacked her, and killed her, he would want the evidence to show that. And it would.

If he called 911, and they sent detectives right over, there would be evidence of her crimes. The time of deaths of all 3 would be almost the same. SW would have evidence upon her, and the girls would have touch DNA from MOM on their little necks.


So it makes no sense, in my opinion, that he throws all of that exonerating evidence away, in the oil and under the dirt. Let alone the question of him even being able to do what he did. To dispose of his babies like that if she was the killer? I don't get that at all.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I believe that is incorrect. In his interview, he stated that CW and the girls were at the party on Sunday, they "vanished" on Monday. 6 weekends before that they were in NC, IIRC.

The playdate occurred on the day of the murders, not the birthday party. This is what I posted on a previous thread.

“This video includes a very brief clip (2:23 – 2:50) of an interview with Jeremy and Jennifer Lindstrom who were with CW, Bella and CeCe just hours before the murders. Jeremy is now listed as a potential witness in the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP46E37QzGQ

This was the couple who held the birthday party for their little boy just days before their murders”.

I’ve already posted several links relating to the birthday party, but just to keep both events together, here’s the link again.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/he-never-once-cried-distraught-friends-react-to-familys-murder-days-after-they-went-to-birthday-party/

So I made the assumption earlier here that the party was on Sunday since the kid's actual birthday falls on Sunday. And I read in other posts Sunday.

 

[Bill Carson]

I appreciate your explanation. Although, I had to read it a couple times to comprehend it and the first time it reminded me of who's on first. LOL

I can assure you that many seasoned attorneys get caught up by these things. It is minutia, but it is important minutia.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

"If the handprints don't fit.....

....you must acquit.