Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #29

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
gitana1 said:
Yes. And yet it happens every year.

What signs were there with Chris Coleman? Neil Entwhistle? Christian Longo? Scott Peterson? Jason Young? Mark Hacking? Ross Harris? Michael Blagg?

Over and over and over again we are presented with these cases of good family men. No history of mental health issues or criminal charges or domestic violence or drug or alcohol issues. Peaceful men. Good dads.

And then boom.

And not with one of them is there evidence of psychosis or dissasociative fugue or any other mental health crisis to explain the seemingly sudden eruption of violence.

But so often we find that these apparently good family men had something else going. Something hidden. Something dark. They just wanted to be free. Totally free. Without going through the shame or hassle or ugliness of a divorce or custody battle.

And yet people contort trying to find something outside of these men to explain what they did.

Regardless, the answer always lies in the men (typically males for some reason) who do these things. Since it seems to come out of nowhere, it's inexplicable but it always has to do with them and their characters.

Because normal people without defects of their souls and without darkness of their minds, they react to unwanted pregnancies or financial issues or affairs or unhappy marriages...differently.

And still? Countless people keep searching for an answer outside of the murderers themselves.

Because you're right. It is terrifying. It's horrible to think that nothing anyone can do can prevent a monster from committing murder. And that in some sinister cases there is no way of knowing that the person sleeping next to you, is actually just such a monster, and capable of such sudden, soul cracking violence.
Click to expand...
This. And IMO... we try to find a way to blame the women.

Edited to correct "we" to some. Because I don't
 
MollyDDD said:
Thanks, because I too am confused sometimes when I get back in here. Sorry about that. So this shows that SW got a Protection From Abuse order from CW? Her family had to know something especially since she spent five weeks there without him. OMG.
Click to expand...
AP is “affair partner.” There was never an abuse prevention order, or any evidence of abuse by either party.
 
FlossyMay said:
I know what emotional abuse is as I've spent many nights sitting in a women's shelter in therapy sessions for that very reason. So again, I haven't seen any signs that either one of them were being abused before the murders, except for his cheating which is a betrayal of trust and would certainly cause a person to become confused about their self worth and value.
Click to expand...
My empathy and support goes out to you @FlossyMay for your recovery from the experiences and exposures to emotional abuse.
My only intention to my post is to suggest that emotional abuse comes in a spectrum of scenarios.
 
From "Psychology Today": "Anger is inaccurately considered by some psychotherapists to be a secondary rather than primary emotion." It explains why some people think this. Then, the article goes on to state that: "In my view, it is a grave error to dismiss anger or rage as secondary and therefore less significant emotions than fear, shame, anxiety or love in the psychotherapy process. Anger is a primary emotion that tends to be repressed in most patients."
The Primacy of Anger Problems

It short, it can be considered a secondary reaction but that's not the rule. Each case must be considered on its own merits.
 
In the last thread, @MKZoo asked---

I think it is a really interesting question. I don’t know how often or what type of case in CO would warrant sequestration. I’d guess this would be one but who knows.

It certainly protects the jury from being bothered by friends and the media about the case. It guards against them hearing the latest “bombshell tonight”. Those are probably good things.

From the practical perspective it’s expensive for the state and very tough on jurors.

I’d be interested in what our trial lawyers think about it. Does a sequestered jury in a case like this end up just wanting a fast verdict because they want to be done with it? That’s always my concern either way.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the practice of sequestering juries is very uncommon these days.

If you look back at the history of it, the main function of sequestering juries was to make sure that all twelve returned each day until the trial was over. Back then (I'm referring to the 19th and early 20th centuries), roads were bad, and people rode horses or walked to the courthouse. Weld County is big---4,017 square miles, which is the size of Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined.

iu


Now think a farmer serving jury duty has to ride his horse from the far corner of the county to Greeley. He couldn't make that trip every day. If you let him go home after day 1, there's a good chance he would not come back, and then you have to start the trial over from day one. For this reason, many old courthouses contained jury quarters, usually in the attic. There were cots or bunks, a restroom with a shower, and maybe a small kitchen. (Juries were all-men back then.) If you go and poke around old courthouses, chances are you will find the room where the jury was sequestered. With modern transportation and hotels, all of that is much less of a problem than it was 100 years ago.

The second reason to sequester a jury is so that they are not influenced by outside information, whether that's newspapers, radio, television,......OR the jurors themselves going to the crime scene on their own to do their own investigation. So you would sequester the jury, keep them in the jury quarters or a hotel, and take away all televisions so they can't watch news coverage. Well today, with the advent of smartphones, laptop computers, tablets, etc, it is much harder to control what information the jury has access to. You can't very well take away their smartphones every evening---they wouldn't put up with that. So instead, you have to charge them and give strong warnings to avoid any news coverage, publicity, or other information about this trial, but it is practically impossible to keep all information away from the jurors.

Then there's the cost of sequestering a jury, housing and feeding them for a loooong trial such as this one is likely to be. And facilitate the jurors' ability to take care of personal obligations at home without it being a hardship. The cost of it would outweigh the benefits obtained.

So I'm just one opinion, and this is my opinion only, but I think it is highly unlikely that the jury will be sequestered when this case goes to trial.
 
Madison418 said: ↑
Yes this I'm very curious about. Wouldn't the state and the defense have equal right to receive it at the same time?

Bluff↑
@Bill Carson, that is reassuring that they are being thorough and diligent but why would the defense team let an error of "she" versus "he" in a document? I guess I am questioning too much.


Bill Carson said:
Sorry, I'm not caught up on the thread. I don't know what you are referring to. If you want to point that out to me, or summarize it, then I'll give you my opinion.
Click to expand...
@Bill Carson
I was just commenting on your remark that the defense is handling the case with due diligence and I was wondering why the "she" error slipped through the system.
 
gitana1 said:
It happens. I actually am otherwise very impressed with the defense. They're sharp and advocating hard. It scares me.
Click to expand...

The PD offices in this general area both Weld and Larimer counties I can't speak for other areas are good. He's not getting a lesser defense bc they're PDs. (Not implying you think that) They also tend IMO to be extremely vile to victims of crime. Part of the reason I "want" more than what we are privy to, is because IMO it will be needed.

All IMO ....
 
sun16 said:
I don’t know about you, but I feel like I’ve played out in my mind 100 times various versions of what happened in the house after the door closed at 1:48am.
Click to expand...
There are endless scenarios unfortunately. We may never have an answer, especially if that answer is contingent upon CW’s account.

The physical evidence can only tell us how they died, not what precipitated it.
 
Bill Carson said:
In the last thread, @MKZoo asked---



In my experience, the practice of sequestering juries is very uncommon these days.

If you look back at the history of it, the main function of sequestering juries was to make sure that all twelve returned each day until the trial was over. Back then (I'm referring to the 19th and early 20th centuries), roads were bad, and people rode horses or walked to the courthouse. Weld County is big---4,017 square miles, which is the size of Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia combined.

iu


Now think a farmer serving jury duty has to ride his horse from the far corner of the county to Greeley. He couldn't make that trip every day. If you let him go home after day 1, there's a good chance he would not come back, and then you have to start the trial over from day one. For this reason, many old courthouses contained jury quarters, usually in the attic. There were cots or bunks, a restroom with a shower, and maybe a small kitchen. (Juries were all-men back then.) If you go and poke around old courthouses, chances are you will find the room where the jury was sequestered. With modern transportation and hotels, all of that is much less of a problem than it was 100 years ago.

The second reason to sequester a jury is so that they are not influenced by outside information, whether that's newspapers, radio, television,......OR the jurors themselves going to the crime scene on their own to do their own investigation. So you would sequester the jury, keep them in the jury quarters or a hotel, and take away all televisions so they can't watch news coverage. Well today, with the advent of smartphones, laptop computers, tablets, etc, it is much harder to control what information the jury has access to. You can't very well take away their smartphones every evening---they wouldn't put up with that. So instead, you have to charge them and give strong warnings to avoid any news coverage, publicity, or other information about this trial, but it is practically impossible to keep all information away from the jurors.

Then there's the cost of sequestering a jury, housing and feeding them for a loooong trial such as this one is likely to be. And facilitate the jurors' ability to take care of personal obligations at home without it being a hardship. The cost of it would outweigh the benefits obtained.

So I'm just one opinion, and this is my opinion only, but I think it is highly unlikely that the jury will be sequestered when this case goes to trial.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining.
 
I am not a mod. Just cautioning that Tricia has warned everyone she will NOT put up with snark any more and IMO it is again creeping into the thread. I don't want the mods overworked or the thread closed. JMO.

------
In other news,
I have a funny feeling that a lot of information is going to be discovered soon.
 
Mo Thuairim said:
I think LE were totally onto him before he even did the interviews. From the sounds of what the 9News journalist was saying in that interview, CW was expressing concern to the journalist pre-interview (on the phone) about possibly having the finger pointed at him. To me, the journalist sounds skeptical about what CW's real concerns are.
It's hard to hear as the audio on the journo isn't great and apologies if I haven't transcribed it 100% accurately but this is what I hear the journalist saying around 2.55mins in.

"I wanted to ask you a little bit about the hard part. Your first thought is: 'Where are they? I want them back.' Your second thought is, you know, your friends were telling me, you've got some... and we kind of heard from you a little over the phone... You're also... your second thought is that you're afraid people think you may have done something."

Click to expand...

Here is my question. He is not mandated to give an interview, is he? Imagining myself in a situation like this, would I even spend the time on the interview? Or would I say, "go away, guys, I have my stuff to do, I have to communicate with the police, I have no time for you?"

Because unless it is an appeal to the kidnappers, no way would I agree to spend the time on the national TV while in fact my family might need me at this moment.
 
I'm wayyyy behind (again) -- but I just saw this - as usual, please forgive if it's a repeat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Allegedly Hiding Bodies of Pregnant Wife & Kids, Chris Watts May Have Left Something Incriminating Behind
When the bodies of Shan’ann Watts and her two young daughters were discovered at a remote Colorado oil field in mid August, police found something else at the scene which may further link the three deaths to Chris Watts, Shan’ann’s husband the father to her girls.

A non-porous bag with a possible footprint was found, according to a prosecution motion obtained by PEOPLE.
[...]
However, a source close to the investigation previously told PEOPLE that “there is absolutely no evidence that she [Shan’ann] killed her children.”

“Just based on the preliminary evidence, everything is consistent with him killing them all,” the source said.
-------------------------------------------
After Allegedly Hiding Families' Bodies, Chris Watts May Have Left Something Incriminating Behind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 2,182 (members: 168, guests: 2,014)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,014
Total visitors
2,182
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,699
Messages
18,128,515
Members
231,127
Latest member
spicytaco46
Back
Top