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

[Trinket78]

In your opinion only do you believe at the time of their marriage that CW was genuinely in love with SW.
Or did he just go with the flow ?

I ask this because as I walked down the isle during my wedding I knew it was not right. My ex was a monster and yet I did and to this day I can't explain why I married him. Anyway after I married him I went onto have 2 children with him.

At the time when they got married? Yes I believe he loved her.

 

[Ilovemy3boys]

I don't think that that presentation was his own work. Who writes their own presentation and then disagrees with one of the bulleted points?

Maybe plagiarized it

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I have to agree. I’ve posted several times imploring posters to be respectful. Several people were modded last night for attacking the VI.
IMO it speaks to @Trinket78 ‘s strength of conviction that she is still here.

I agree and IMO it's rude, disrespectful, against TOS and totally uncalled for.

 

[Inthedetails]

Yes, I see your point but his description of going into a rage points more to active than passive. Imo

I don't think he went into a rage. I think he lost his patience or lost his temper with one child at dinner....which is not the same as going into a rage at all. Passive people can lose their patience and get angry.

Again, on repeat, it's a working theory. I don't know yet if it will fit the COD or time of death, which is crucial info in this case.

I happen to think the "cover-up and hide" theory fits his personality that he accidentally killed a child and then, in a panic and out of fear, covered it up with more murders and then covered it all up with the disposals. Crazy idea? Yes, it is. But so is any other scenario that results in deaths of children and a spouse.

Theory will be adjusted or dismissed as needed. For me, it makes sense with what we know so far. (And we don't know everything.)

I'm going to scroll for awhile though and glean what others are coming up with. I might be missing some good ideas that others have.

jmo

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks so much !!

Love your profile : "Overachieving at over analysing everything. " You've certainly come to the right place- WS

 

[Sleuthine]

Jeremy Lindstrom hosted the birthday party for his little boy several days before the family "vanished".

Family friend talks about seeing Chris Watts and his girls just days before the murders

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.

I am not sure what to do with this article here, there aren't many possible days. Kids only came back on Wednesday IIRC . SW left on Friday. Party was either on Friday (highly unlikely, also since CW had to work?) or Saturday or Sunday. This is one or two days before they vanished. The headline is misleading IMO.

 

[Thepoet]

At the time when they got married? Yes I believe he loved her.

Do you believe SW loved him when they got married?

 

[cshea99]

Sorry, I don't see it. Trinket is entitled to anonymity and we should respect that, but it also brings in to question bias, motives, etc., because we don't know; who is this person? There are other DIs here, that we know their connection. If Trinket's knowledge is that deep and important, why isn't he/she a witness? For the defense? You couple the anonymity with the bias in favor of CW, and I can see how people could be leery.

But there is a difference between being leery, which is understandable and being downright disrespectful. Many were being the latter, hence them being modded.

 

[Jennifer17]

Yes! And why do we have to keep saying it over and over again? This is a crime sleuthing board. We try to find clues about the crime.

But only CW has been charged with a crime.

 

[Thepoet]

Because some don't like the narrative and it seems they are trying to wear us done so we stop talking about it.

Which narative?

 

[Waterdog]

part of the prosecuting team?

No, I responded after that post but it was a forensic analyst for the prosecution. I misremembered (I read a lot of different cases, so forgive me.) But I can't link to it, so this post and yours will most likely get deleted, fyi.

The defense has claimed that there are leaks coming from the prosecution side. Expect to see more of this in the news, in the future...elsewhere.

 

[Thepoet]

But only CW has been charged with a crime.

Actually he's been charged with numerous crimes?

 

[gitana1]

Thank you @Amandaaa for a great post. Glad to have you with us at WS. I’m also pleased to see you do not suffer from confirmation bias & are able to look at the whole picture.

I think it's a bit unfair to accuse those who believe the state with "confirmation bias" or if not looking at the "whole picture". There is a ton of evidence in this case. Extraordinarily powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt as charged.

At the outset I analyzed everything presented with as much objectivity as I could muster. In fact, my initial posts entertained the possibility of SHANANN possibly having disappeared the girls and maybe even having gone of the deep end, taking them to a hotel or someplace and murdering them and killing herself due to some sort of psychosis or possibly some kind of horrific rage/revenge scenario which we see on the part of both men and women on a sadly regular basis in this nation.

But then more and more evidence came out. Much of which I posted which is at the beginning of the thread.

And in analyzing that evidence I formed an opinion that I feel is logical and reasonable, and not a result of "bias".

I'm willing to scrutinize the state or embrace the professions of innocence on the part of accused. I've done so in the past in several cases including quite high profile and super controversial ones.

I've also been able to cast a side eye at supposed victims of crime (Sherri Papini is a big one).

Use of critical thinking skills to analyze evidence and apply that to the law is something we attorney types are drilled on in law school and in practice. You have to be able to be objective or you're going to fail in this business. Period.

So yeah, after looking at the whole picture I have some strong opinions.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't something to learn from those who think otherwise or those who know and support CW.

I for one think that Trinket78's perspective is a valuable one on this site, for many reasons, along with the perspectives of others- witnesses and VI's who didn't loathe Shanann, and actually liked both parents and that discussion of all points of view is what makes this site so interesting.

But it is not a sign of an inability to be objective or fair, to consider Trinket78's unsubstantiated and unverified facts, and a perspective that appears to come from one who cares for the accused but dislikes the homicide victim, and respectfully decline THUS FAR, to find those statements to be a persuasive indication of CW's innocence.

That being said, there are various defenses in this case that could possibly be viable. They're worthy of a discussion.

I have strong, carefully considered opinions but I am interested to see what more comes out.

 

[Waterdog]

But only CW has been charged with a crime.

And innocent of part of the charges until proven guilty of all charges.

 

[Layla123]

I have to take issue with everyone calling SW bossy, or I’m bossy and I don’t know it. I’ve been married a very long time, and I love my husband very much, but when it comes to running a household, the guy is clueless, always has been, always will be. For example, often times, out of the blue, someone is coming over, and the house is a little messy. Maybe a few dishes need to be done, there’s a load of laundry on the couch that needs to be folded, the floor needs to be vacuumed. Stuff like that. I’ll ask my husband for help, and if I don’t boss him around, he’ll go straight to the refrigerator and start cleaning it out. I’ve tried to explain to him to go for the obvious, but he just doesn’t get it. Same goes for sending him to the grocery store. He’ll buy margarine instead of butter, fertile brown eggs (the blood in the yolks makes me gag), pumpkin pie mix, instead of pumpkin pulp. I have to give him very specific lists, or he’ll come home with things I’ve never heard of before. Is that just my marriage or are other guys like that?

 

[The Saint]

At the time when they got married? Yes I believe he loved her.

Trinket78,

Forgive if you've answered the questions that I had. I hgaven't been able to
find your reply.
Here they are.
Could you tell us if you know:

1. Did Chris have girlfriends in high school and/or college?

2. Why didn't Chris accept the NASCAR scholarship and go their mechanics training program?

3. What was CW's relationship like with his parents and sister?

4. Prior to the nut/drumstick ice cream incident at CW's mom's house, what was SW's relationship like with CW's parents?

5. What was CW's relationship like with SW's family?

6. SW's family knew about SW and CW's plans to separate. Do you know
what that plan was? Would SW and the girls be moving back to NC alone w/o CW?
Would CW move back to NC too? Or would they all stay in CO?

7. Was it CW's idea to have the 3rd baby?

8. Did Chris have 2 pickup trucks --- a company fleet truck for work and one that was his own personal one?

Thank you!

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Which narative?

I'm scrolling and rolling......

 

[Thepoet]

But there is a difference between being leery, which is understandable and being downright disrespectful. Many were being the latter, hence them being modded.

I don't countenance disrespectful and I'm sorry if it happened. I hope I didn't sound that way. I don't think I've been modded???

 

[Thepoet]

I'm scrolling and rolling......

Um. . . .okay.

 

[MsBetsy]

I don't think that that presentation was his own work. Who writes their own presentation and then disagrees with one of the bulleted points?

I understood it to be a Presentaion of "Deterioration of Relationships" Of course he would have used sources for the presentation. I certainly did not assume he was an expert in relationships! I just noticed his flat tone and wondered how he himself might view relationships. The fact that he said that "sudden would be an example of infidelity" caught my attention because even if he had written it incorrectly, I would expect him to have caught it as he read it. Or maybe he was just nervous. What was the thing he disagreed with? I didn't see the entire thing but would be interested to know.