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

[MsBetsy]

I think we've had that wrong. I think he took them to the friend's BBQ Saturday and that was the last time the girls were seen alive that we know of. And then he was seen grilling by himself Sunday.

That's what I remember. The first part, anyway. Not the second part. So apparently no-one saw them on Sunday, that we know of. Jmo

 

[Kensie]

I guess SW lies were 'Life is great and we are so happy'.
Yep, that is a really bad lie - between that and the shoes , well CW just snapped.

 

[esayer]

What makes you think drugs were involved? I think its highly unlikely SW would take any sleeping meds because she's pregnant. We had raised the question of CW giving the girls cough meds or benadryl's to make them sleep but in retrospect its unlikely.

More that he drugged them with like a date rape drug or something like that.

 

[gitana1]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/19th_Judicial_District/caseofinterest/2018CR2003/(D36) MR WATTS OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION [K].pdf

I want to thank you and others who have been diligent in monitoring the site for updated pleadings filed.

This is very interesting. He is trying to prevent the state from be able to collect his palm prints and DNA.

I think he's going to lose that motion. It's a murder case so yeah, there probable cause to collect such evidence.

What's interesting is juxtaposing his objection with all the people in the Innocence Project who are on death row or life in prison BEGGING for their DNA to be tested.

I mean look, tactically, I would probably be filing the same motion. You want to protect the accused's rights as much as possible and not make the state's job easy for them.

But really? How is getting a palm print from someone charged with five counts of first degree murder, when he claims all were strangled, how is that a constitutionally impermissible search because it's "unreasonable."?

And wouldn't Chris himself be chomping at the bit to prove it wasn't his hands on those babies' necks if he was innocent?

 

[Mrspratcher]

YES someone please explain this last one. How can refuse to give his palm print and so on.

Haven’t read it just yet! I’m sure if @gitana1 and @Amandaaa get to it before me, they will explain. I’ll be back a little later, but wanted to leave you guys with a little treat!

 

[Kensie]

it will be at least 4 hours before I am resume , no telling how far behind I will be . Just glad to be off the ice cream, chiropractor subjects.

 

[nwmouse]

I will try to explain what I mean. The offensive part to me is the fact that the children were murdered. Following death, the soul was no longer present, and would not feel anything. So, i dont understand why an oil tank is more heinous than any other burial location. Am i missing something? As I said, after living around the oil fields for so many years, I dont understand why so many think the oil tank is more heinous than say a shallow grave. But, be clear, I am not trying to justify what happened. Just trying to understand! So much of what I have read is totally baffling! I hesitate to even ask!

Its to do with the vile desecration of innocent children's corpses. It would be like someone throwing children's corpses into a swamp for the alligators to eat, or disposing of the bodies in some other foul way. They were not laid to rest with DIGNITY and that's why we're horrified.

 

[Davia18]

I want to thank you and others who have been diligent in monitoring the site for updated pleadings filed.

This is very interesting. He is trying to prevent the state from be able to collect his palm prints and DNA.

I think he's going to lose that motion. It's a murder case so yeah, there probable cause to collect such evidence.

What's interesting is juxtaposing his objection with all the people in the Innocence Project who are on death row or life in prison BEGGING for their DNA to be tested.

I mean look, tactically, I would probably be filing the same motion. You want to protect the accused's rights as much as possible and not make the state's job easy for them.

But really? How is getting a palm print from someone charged with five counts of first degree murder, when he claims all were strangled, how is that a constitutionally impermissible search because it's "unreasonable."?

And wouldn't Chris himself be chomping at the bit to prove it wasn't his hands on those babies' necks if he was innocent?

Exactly. I have never seen anything like this. It's going to turn into a da$% circus.

 

[MassGuy]

On one hand, we have a guy who told lie after lie, in the context of a murder and coverup.

On the other hand, we have a woman who may have exaggerated her family’s health, wealth, and happiness. For argument’s sake, let’s call these exaggerations or misrepresentations “lies.”

We have a guy who literally admitted to lying about murder.

We have a woman who may have projected a false image on social media.

The scales are not equal.

 

[Medstudies]

Because bodies should be treated with respect, not thrown in crude oil. I grew up with fishing trawlers, but I certainly would not want my child's remains thrown in the hold of a fishing boat and I loved boats.

Here’s the thing: he meant for them to stay missing. So her family and friends would never know wth happened to them. So police and family would waste their entire lives not knowing. Anguish. That is what makes it so heinous for me. He is beyond evil. But at least he can straight up lie and sleep well.
(Prayers for the family of Lauren Spierer)

 

[bluesneakers]

I guess SW lies were 'Life is great and we are so happy'.
Yep, that is a really bad lie - between that and the shoes , well CW just snapped.

That’s the same lie 80% of people on SM are telling. Most people only post happy stuff. It’s no fun bringing everyone down, especially if your SM is an arm of your business.

 

[nwmouse]

I guess SW lies were 'Life is great and we are so happy'.
Yep, that is a really bad lie - between that and the shoes , well CW just snapped.

And SW was trying hard to help with finances. Her "happy" image and posts were part of her Thrive marketing. I don't know of many people who post anything BUT embellished lifestyles on SM. Which is why I deleted FB et al because it was unrealistic and made me feel inadequate as my life was not nearly as glamorous as those that my "friends" projected on FB. So yeah, maybe SW used creative license to promote her business but she was not harming anyone by doing so.

 

[Tricia]

I don't think we're supposed to be discussing the incident with the mother in law and the pistachios since the posts were in a private facebook group. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could swear the mods said something about this several threads ago.

I am looking into this story as well. If it can't be confirmed or denied then it will not be up for discussion. Until I know if I can or can't verify it please refrain from any discussion of the pistachios. Thank you.

 

[Gardenista]

YES someone please explain this last one. How can refuse to give his palm print and so on.

I'm more interested in the why....seeing as he's so innocent

 

[MKZoo]

No, I wouldn’t.

If I were THAT worried, I’d call the police.

I inferred from that FB post: “I can’t wait to hug my husband and kids” and NOT “Gee, I hope my husband didn’t strangle my kids”.

I’ll start by acknowledging that we really don’t know anything about the source of this information.

I would guess that if she was truly alarmed about the kids safety, she would have called the police or someone to go to the house. I think it’s possible that she interpreted his (alleged) refusal to let her talk the kids as him being obstinate or cranky and her anxiety was that he’d still be in a mood when she got home. Maybe the Facebook post was just a way to convince herself more than anyone that all was normal.

We all hear this and think it is horrifying because we know what happened later. She probably had no reason to know what was to come.

 

[gitana1]

It’s a fascinating - and frightening - process for sure! Ultimately you want people who can be fair and follow directions, to strike those who may seem to have an obvious potential bias and to keep those who you think will tend to view things in your favor. But ultimately it’s kind of a crapshoot (you can get feelings about people but you never really know) with enormous potential ramifications...

With some crimes you charge the more serious - then if you are missing an element (like premeditation) but can prove everything else you can go for the lesser included offense.


Once again let me clarify I do NOT practice in Colorado but I would assume it’s no different there

Colorado is unique. They can argue the lesser included at trial while still keeping the greater crimes on the table. They can argue both.

 

[nwmouse]

More that he drugged them with like a date rape drug or something like that.

But where would he have access to an illegal date rape drug like Rohypnol? Doubt it. Probably not something routinely r/x'd by a doc either, and I doubt he hung out with people who could score it (including the odd allegedly gay AP "TB"). IF and I say IF with a capital "I": *If* he drugged the girls to make their murders easier for him to commit then I'm sure cough medicine or Benadryl (over the counter) will be found in the tox screen of the autopsy. MOO MOO. (Tricia can we get the cute cow emoticon back that moos?)

 

[Tricia]

I don't think we're supposed to be discussing the incident with the mother in law and the pistachios since the posts were in a private facebook group. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could swear the mods said something about this several threads ago.

From an insider who was there the day it happened. Here is what they said:

There was an unopened bag of pistachios on top of the kitchen island. She saw them, Laughed and said "Mimi, we can't have these" and put them on top of the fridge. I guess most importantly.. They were unopened and not on the bottom shelf

Pistachio story cleared up. No need to discuss this any further.

Tricia

 

[Amandaaa]

Colorado is unique. They can argue the lesser included at trial while still keeping the greater crimes on the table. They can argue both.

Yes - I’m just saying that if they can’t prove an element that’s required for the greater they can go for the lesser

 

[nwmouse]

On one hand, we have a guy who told lie after lie, in the context of a murder and coverup.

On the other hand, we have a woman who may have exaggerated her family’s health, wealth, and happiness. For argument’s sake, let’s call these exaggerations or misrepresentations “lies.”

We have a guy who literally admitted to lying about murder.

We have a woman who may have projected a false image on social media.

The scales are not equal, and even if they were, I’d say “So what?!”

And we also know SW was projecting a positive, happy image on SM to help her Thrive business because she wanted to provide the best life possible for her kids. In this case, projecting a super-happy vibe is excusable.