Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #26

[Marli61]

deleted by me

 

[dgfred]

At first I thought the father likely told him right off... 'you just CAN'T say you killed the little girls'
and he went with it.

 

[Kensie]

CW is kind of a 'pretty' boy. Hope he uglies up before he hits the Big House.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

To my knowledge she was not part owner. She was a manager/salesperson.

Thank you

 

[Marli61]

IF that story is true, it could even be that SW wasn't thinking CW did something to the girls but just that he was being spiteful and not letting her talk to them. Like maybe she was thinking ugh, here we go, we are going to have a fight (arguement) tonight when I get home. I'm sure if she thought her daughters were in physical danger she would have called someone or asked Nic to come in with her. She could have even joked about "If you don't hear from me....." We just don't know. Things can be taken so many different ways. However IF this story is true then it does lead me to think the babies were already dead.

Yes! Well said! I had this same scenario almost typed out but deleted it because I couldn't complete my thought.

 

[Nudgee]

This could at least explain how she could have afforded to have a home built in NC. Many of us were wondering how a car rim salesperson had a high enough income to qualify for a home/mortgage that size, but if she were part owner of the business itself, makes sense.

Maybe the business is connected to heR prior marriage ( family owned?)...The timing of her buying a house when she was 25 (9 years ago) MAY have been due to a divorce settlement....The lawsuit was filed 9 years ago.....

 

[MsBetsy]

He made have told people if they asked where the girls were while he was bar-b-queing - that they are inside asleep since they went to bed at 6:30.

The barbecue was at his own house? Confused. I'm talking about the interview with friends at the barbecue, I thought they said he was acting normal... I'm asking if it was mentioned whether or not he was asked where they girls were, and if so, what did he say? I just cant see a reporter not asking that question.

 

[BabyButterfly]

I have a question for any VI or from someone who may have seen the answer to this on SW's FB. It may seem like an irrelevant question but it has a reason. Did the girls take naps? If so, at what time usually, and for how long?

Yes per SW FB. About 2 hours.

 

[Gardenista]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user... WATTS OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION [K].pdf

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

CW is kind of a 'pretty' boy. Hope he uglies up before he hits the Big House.

Ugly is as ugly does. And Karma is Karma.

 

[ReckoningDay]

Yes per SW FB. About 2 hours.

Thank you. Any idea the usual time they laid down for naps?

 

[Kensie]

MsBetsy, it sounded like CW was grilling outdoors (bar-b-que, grilling, etc). He was alone when cooking.

 

[Sleuthine]

The barbecue was at his own house? Confused.

Yes, apparently some time after the birthday party they went to. But I don't know where we actually learned this from.

 

[BabyButterfly]

Thank you. Any idea the usual time they laid down for naps?

No clue on that, sorry

 

[idfinch]

I would think LE has the conversation CW had with his dad on video as the rooms all have cameras, correct?

I wonder if he told his dad the story about SW killing the girls as "truth" and if his dad believed it. What his dad's reaction was. If there was any time off camera with privacy where a story could have been made, or where he could have admitted to his dad that he killed them all and then come up with the story about the girls after the fact. Or if CW made up this story so that he wouldn't have to admit not only to LE, but to his dad, he killed the girls.

I wonder if that conversation will be admissible in court, depending on what was said and if on video.

I believe the poster with the local rumors. It makes a lot of sense and connects some dots in my head.

I can only imagine the hours and hours of interviews with CW and all of the lies and contradictions. I do think there's a lot more we don't know... but I believe it is in support of the prosecution.

 

[Amandaaa]

I’ve been busy at work and have fallen way behind on here - was intending to catch up before posting, but that just doesn’t seem possible...

This is an exceptionally complicated case. I have never had any kind of personal experience with a case involving multiple murders where a defendant admits to killing one victim - and claims the victim killed the others. Add the dearth of known facts and the prevalence of social media - and I can totally understand why this case discussion is getting so heated. However, we are all here for the same reason - we want to know what happened. Maybe we will find out - and in that case, some will be right and some will be wrong. Or maybe we won’t ever know what really took place that night. I hope that’s not the case, but it’s possible.

I was asked for my thoughts on whether - based solely on the current known facts - I thought C.W. would be convicted for his daughters’ deaths. I hedged that answer a little bit - in part because when it comes to legal matters, it really *does* always depend...two situations are never the same. Change the facts slightly and you may get a different result. I also wanted to wait until I could give a slightly more detailed answer - so here it is. It’s not “pro-“ or “anti-“ either SW or CW - and it steers clear of pretty much any Monday morning quarterbacking if either of their parenting skills or decisions, documented forever thanks to social media.

Anyway - we have the initial charges brought by the prosecution. They want to cover their bases - so they might as well start with the most difficult to prove (first degree murder). If they can’t prove a required element, they can always go for a lesser included offense. Yes, they have to have some basis for the charges - but the fact that charges were brought does not mean that CW is guilty. Far from it. They will have to present additional evidence later on, to see if there’s enough to go to trial... and even *then*, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty - that’s where the trial comes in.

The affidavit lays out the basic evidence relied upon to support his arrest. It does not cover everything - a lot of details are missing, and IMO those details are pretty critical to the potential outcome of this case. We just don’t know what those are, right now. Then we likely have additional evidence gathered by LE - electronic, GPS, postmortems, forensics.

The trial. As you’ve seen on this site, the same exact facts can be viewed very differently by different people. Some people watch a video and reach one conclusion while others reach the opposite conclusions. It’s amazing, actually. Jurors are going to be the exact same way. Each juror will agree to take the evidence and apply it to the legal framework, as instructed, in reaching the verdict. But people are complicated, and reasonable minds may differ (wildly). Jury selection is probably my favorite part of the trial - and one of the most important parts, too. Each potential juror arrives with a wealth of background experience and knowledge that most definitely impacts their view of the case. I spend a LOT of time on jury selection. I take extensive notes... read facial expressions and body language... attempt to ask questions in *just* the right way, in order to reveal possible hidden biases - or allegiances (that otherwise may be denied, if asked directly). I want jurors who are open minded and reasonable - who will listen to the facts and the law and make their decision within that framework. Jurors who take their role seriously, who don’t go home at the end of the day and talk to their spouse or family about what they’ve heard.

The trial itself is about creating a compelling story that aligns with the evidence. It has to be reasonable and pass the common sense test.

So here, for example, take the few facts we actually KNOW. The prosecution will tell one story - how C.W. killed his entire family. What about the defense? I have a potential storyline that fits with everything we know so far, but I don’t want to upset people so after having second thoughts, I’m not going to post it now - but it exists - and i think it can be pretty compelling.

 

[angelina1]

My husband worked in the oilfield for 35 years. His jobs varied from time to time, but at one time, he was a field operator -:which is the same position that CW had. As far as what happens to a decomposing body inside of an oil tank filled with crude oil, I cannot say. However, you mentioned oil field workers found dead outside of oil tanks. Death in this case was more than likely caused by some type of poisonous gas accumulation such as hydrogen sulfide gas. Oilfield workers that are working in the fields where hydrogen sulfide gas exists, usually wear a Scott's air pack. These days, I am sure there are very few deaths attributed to gas inhalation. Most oil companies have safety departments that are dedicated to educating oil field employees about known hazards. Oil companies do not want an incident of any kind to be reported to OSHA. This has nothing to do with this case really. Just addressing oil field workers that were found dead outside of an oil tank. However, one thing I have read repeatedly on these threads and also many other discussion boards, the fact that so many find it so heinous, that CW placed his children's remains inside of a tank of oil. As opposed to what? I dont really know of a better place. The children were dead, or I assume that. I haven't seen anything else that indicates otherwise. I guess because the oil fields of West Texas supported our family for many years, I dont find that offensive, say compared to burial in a shallow grave. Decomposition, regardless of where it takes place is not pretty! All of this is of course is MO.

Seriously?

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes, I think most people that have been here since the second week understand that the folks got that from the defense submission to the court, and ran with it. It has been corrected since then. It was mainstream media misunderstanding. That was a long time ago :deadhorse: :moo:

It's curious that so many different media outfits ran the story. And some have family stating it and others have LE stating it. If it's not true, then why does it remain on the thread? Do you have a link of the PC, or whatever news source that said it was a misunderstanding? This is the first time I am hearing that it was a mistake, I haven't heard the official statement. Not saying it's not true, but a link would be helpful. Thanks

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

The barbecue was at his own house? Confused. I'm talking about the interview with friends at the barbecue, I thought they said he was acting normal... I'm asking if it was mentioned whether or not he was asked where they girls were, and if so, what did he say? I just cant see a reporter not asking that question.

Supposedly he took the girls to a neighborhood child's b'day party that day, and then was seen in the Watts backyard grilling by himself. Some think it's odd the girls weren't outside with him, but many have said they went to bed at 6:30. There are videos online of the father (I think?) of the b'day child being interviewed that CW didn't seem "off" during the party at all.

 

[gitana1]

I hesitate to even post this for fear of the tomatoes being thrown that I'm blaming the father, which I am not, so bear with me.

If CW's story changed to "SW killed the children, and I killed her" after he requested to speak to his father, would that conversation have been recorded and been subject to being used on the record? That is, if his father, or anyone else, realized that *perhaps* there would be no evidence on the children to point to ANYONE (i.e., wouldn't the coroner have to wash the oil off, thus removing fibers, hair, possible DNA on the surface, and so on), if anyone that he may have spoken to prior to his last "confession" came up with the idea, and shared that with CW in jail, and then let's say CW said, "You're right! They can't prove it was me, her, or anyone else" and then changed his confession, would that be admissable in court if it was an obvious seed planted in his head?

I've just been thinking alot about why he changed his story to pointing blame on her at the very last minute. Coincidence? And is it really kosher if perhaps someone gave him the idea?

Please note I have NO idea if anyone gave him that idea. Just curious in general how this may work in the court of law.

Heck. I'm just shocked that people are afraid to be perceived now as blaming a defendant who has been charged with five counts of first degree murder, who we have solid evidence is a killer and a liar.