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

[Alethea]

I’ll leave this up to the lawyers to answer. I do know that it’s an uphill climb for autopsy reports to be sealed in Colorado.

The public's right to information is not greater than a defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial jury and the court's duty to ensure due process is protected. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) laws do not supersede constitutional protections. A law cannot be interpreted in a way to violate the Constitution or any of its Amendments. It is rare, in my experience, for a defense team to side with the media for expanded FOIA interpretation.

FOIA is heavily litigated in both state and federal contexts and cases. Every single filing or discovery submission I have ever made to the Department of Justice included a request for FOIA confidential treatment.

 

[borndem]

Yep. It is a big problem. We have fought the system for years. I even homeschooled my son for 2 years because the policy is so absurd. It is a waste of everyone's time, including the doctors, and it does zero to curb truancy. For many of us, doctor co-pays are $30 per visit. Some parents send their kids to school, sick, because they can't afford to take them in to get a doctor's note. Then other kids get sick.

I mention this because I take the idea of "excessive doctor visits" with a grain of salt. Some parents are a little overly cautious and those with children enrolled in pre-school might need the doctor visits to ensure continued enrollment. Just an idea.

Children who stay at home before kindergarten or pre-school are not exposed to the usual colds, strep throat, stomach viruses, etc., as are those who are in day-care, etc. It's a double-edged sword -- either have them in day-care or preschool where they will get little sicknesses more often than those at home, but they will acquire some immunity during those years; the at-home children will get those ills when they go to pre-school or kindergarten. So it's a trade-off. Some think it is preferable, if feasible for the family situation, to keep the little ones home as long as possible -- they will mix with other children but not nearly as much/often and will acquire some immunity, but probably not as much -- but they are older and possibly their systems are better at fighting those germs. A toss-up, I guess.
And we all know how it is with that first child -- a sneeze, and it's to the doctor (if mom/dad can afford it, or have insurance). And in this case, her having lupus probably played a part in SW's mind as to doctor visits for the girls.

 

[MerryB]

@gitana1 Hi Gitana, or any other Attorney, I think I know a lot about this case, but at the same time, I am aware that everything I think I know is subject to change, once all of the evidence is revealed at the trial. I think I’d be an impartial and fair juror, I’d be perfectly capable of throwing away what I thought I knew, once more truthful and accurate evidence came forth at the trial. Aren’t most people capable of the same thing? What proof is there that jurors who know nothing about a case make better jurors? I would think the prosecution and the Defense would be better off if jurors actually knew the facts coming into a case, like COD, rather than having their heads filled with speculation they’ve garnered off the media.

I am not a lawyer but I served on a jury for a high-profile child molestation case. When interviewing potential jurors, the attorneys were not concerned so much with whether or not we’d heard about the case, but rather whether we could objectively listen to the facts of the emotionally charged case and be able to make a decision based only on facts presented at trial.

So, I agree with you. I’m interested to hear what our trial lawyers have to say about seating a jury as well.

 

[Seattle1]

As far as I understand it from @Layla123's summary, that expert believes the tanks at the burial site were API 12F models. (I am not sure if that is definitely correct but that's what he seemed to think.)
The specs are attached here including details of 8in thief hatch.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/api.12f.1994.pdf

Good find! Please also be reminded that Oil & Gas has long been a regulated industry, and tanks for hazardous liquids (i.e., crude oil) are included in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 195.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

The judge should explain reasons for possible Consecutive vs Concurrent sentencing before allowing them to continue with besmirching the victim as a defense. Jmo.

Because as a judge I would be appalled and truly give him a Consecutive sentence even if it was a hung jury for the 2 murder charges of the kids. While guilty on the other 5 charges.

Consecutive sentencing is when each sentence on each count runs 1 after the other.

While Concurrent sentencing is when each sentence on each count runs Concurrent with the highest.

So 25 years Concurrent is way better than 25 + 10 +10 +5 + 5 Consecutive. Jmo

I've never understood concurrent versus consecutive as to the legalities as to how it is applied. Sometimes, I have seen that it is due to one event, then it is concurrent. I think a lawyer here would be best to address? Because it might be a question many of us have?

 

[liltexans]

Please know I’m not trying to be difficult, but can you elaborate on what’s considered “snarky”. It’s been a topic in several private discussions and IMO many people (including myself) are genuinely confused.

Certainly. Generally speaking, snark is when someone addresses another poster in a condescending or sarcastic manner. If the post is being made at the expense of another poster, then it is likely snarky and not respectful. We welcome differing opinions on WS as this is a discussion forum and not an echo chamber; however, we do require that posters communicate respectfully with each other. This includes not personalizing posts, agreeing to disagree, scrolling and rolling, etc.

Belittling another poster's opinion or making another poster feel dumb or unwelcome is not allowed here. I hope that helps to clarify. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to private message me or any moderator. We are happy to help.

 

[MassGuy]

The public's right to information is not greater than a defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial jury and the court's duty to ensure due process is protected. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) laws do not supersede constitutional protections. A law cannot be interpreted in a way to violate the Constitution or any of its Amendments. It is rare, in my experience, for a defense team to side with the media for expanded FOIA interpretation.

FOIA is heavily litigated in both state and federal contexts and cases. Every single filing or discovery submission I have ever made to the Department of Justice included a request for FOIA confidential treatment.

That makes sense. A follow up then: If both the defense and prosecution don’t want the reports released, is that it? Or does the media get its say here.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Certainly. Generally speaking, snark is when someone addresses another poster in a condescending or sarcastic manner. If the post is being made at the expense of another poster, then it is likely snarky and not respectful. We welcome differing opinions on WS as this is a discussion forum and not an echo chamber; however, we do require that posters communicate respectfully with each other. This includes not personalizing posts, agreeing to disagree, scrolling and rolling, etc.

Belittling another poster's opinion or making another poster feel dumb or unwelcome is not allowed here. I hope that helps to clarify. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to private message me or any moderator. We are happy to help.

Thank you.

 

[MsBetsy]

Well the defense can fight this in due time if they feel the autopsy findings will give credence to the defense.

That still doesn't explain the reasoning behind it, unless I am missing something in that explanation. I guess maybe I need more details.

 

[nwmouse]

Wow..just popped over to this thread yesterday determined to speak my mind about how horrible it was that SW had been thrown under the bus in so many posts. I couldn't even invite one of her friends on as the criticism of her daily life was so harsh. I didn't like the fact that people could consider her a suspect here based on a confessed murderer's words. I would look daily at MSM to see IF anyone was reporting that she was involved. I haven't read every thread,but I have seen a turn around in the posts where I now see that more are seeing her as a victim and not a mastermind of this crime. As I have stated before, CW's own actions of dumping his daughters' bodies speaks volumes of his mindset in all of this.

I'm relieved that people are now seeing pregnant mom SW as the victim she is, along with her precious toddlers. IMOO, I noticed the change became stronger when AB/HLN had the expert in on Thursday 27 June 2018 discussing the oil tanks and the tiny 8 inch opening in the thief hatch. That meant cramming the toddlers bodies in, and having to "manipulate" the bodies to get them to fit. Once it was realized that CW would probably need to break his little girls' bones to fit them in, the tide began to turn because only a MONSTER could desecrate the bodies of the toddlers by cramming them into crude oil vats and murder a pregnant, exhausted wife, then bury her in a shallow grave for wild animals to eat. SICKENING!!!!! Adding a MOO.

 

[Alethea]

That makes sense. A follow up then: If both the defense and prosecution don’t want the reports released, is that it? Or does the media get its say here.

The media can still file motions to argue their rights as the press to cover a public court proceeding. Big outlets have first amendment lawyers on staff who always motion to intervene because it is in their interest to have greater public disclosure in every state. I know the big newspapers do it on principle, and it is not related to the subject manner of any specific case but rather related to the "newsworthiness" and public interest. I.e. they do not intervene on the side of the state or the defense but rather as a member of the press.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I've never understood concurrent versus consecutive as to the legalities as to how it is applied. Sometimes, I have seen that it is due to one event, then it is concurrent. I think a lawyer here would be best to address? Because it might be a question many of us have?

Totally agree. Sometimes the most violent criminals are released 20 years later because a judge ran their multi sentence Concurrent.

So I hate hearing someone got 20 years on each count but some judge doesn't run them consecutively.

So they are out killing again 20 years later.jmo

 

[MassGuy]

The media can still file motions to argue their rights as the press to cover a public court proceeding. Big outlets have first amendment lawyers on staff who always motion to intervene because it is in their interest to have greater public disclosure in every state. I know the big newspapers do it on principle, and it is not related to the subject manner of any specific case but rather related to the "newsworthiness" and public interest. I.e. they do not intervene on the side of the state or the defense but rather as a member of the press.

Gotcha. Thanks!

 

[DexterMorgan]

That still doesn't explain the reasoning behind it, unless I am missing something in that explanation. I guess maybe I need more details.

The report isn't ready and the state doesn't want to release the prelim report prematurely maybe. Idk.

 

[Amandaaa]

Something strange happened to this post...

 

[gitana1]

Because seeking to seal the report for any other reason is useless. The defense will get the same report. If it contains exculpatory evidence, there is absolutely no way to hide that. I don’t understand why people think there is something underhanded happening here.

Yes. It makes no sense. The results will be released to the defense long before trial. What good does it do the prosecution now to seal them besides reducing the types of jurors they want from the jury pool.

I do not know if that honestly would be a justification. It will be interesting to see what the court says.
Do you happen to know if other cases with high public interest have kept autopsy reports sealed?

Yes. I've cited a few.

Scott Peterson case. By request of prosecution.

JBR case. Agreement of both.

Sandra Cantú case. By request of prosecution.

It's not uncommon.

 

[mtnlites]

Children who stay at home before kindergarten or pre-school are not exposed to the usual colds, strep throat, stomach viruses, etc., as are those who are in day-care, etc. It's a double-edged sword -- either have them in day-care or preschool where they will get little sicknesses more often than those at home, but they will acquire some immunity during those years; the at-home children will get those ills when they go to pre-school or kindergarten. So it's a trade-off. Some think it is preferable, if feasible for the family situation, to keep the little ones home as long as possible -- they will mix with other children but not nearly as much/often and will acquire some immunity, but probably not as much -- but they are older and possibly their systems are better at fighting those germs. A toss-up, I guess.
And we all know how it is with that first child -- a sneeze, and it's to the doctor (if mom/dad can afford it, or have insurance). And in this case, her having lupus probably played a part in SW's mind as to doctor visits for the girls.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what my post was about. I was simply replying to the idea of a child having a lot of doctors' visits and saying that sometimes those numerous visits are not because the parent is overreacting or "faking" a child's illness but because those doctor visits are literally mandated by the school system. I used my own child's school as an example: if they are sick and must stay home from school then I have to take them to the doctor and get them an excuse, even if the illness is just a simple thing that could be treated at home. When my son was in pre-school, he caught everything coming and going. Most were simply 24-hour viruses that could be treated with fluid, rest, and Tylenol at home. I had to take him to the doctor each time, however, to get a note for the preschool, even though there wasn't anything the doctor could do to treat him. Go back and look at our records and it would look like he was at the doctor 10 million times. One might be led to think that I was overreacting. I wasn't. If I wanted him to remain in preschool, I had to get that doctor's note.

I was simply suggesting that there could be other reasons why the girls had what some deemed to be "excessive" doctor visits. That's all my post was about.

 

[gitana1]

Only on one show though by the sounds of it, whereas on here it has been discussed over many pages.

They are going to be given the graphic details by prosecutors long before they're publicized. If they don't want to hear them they will be instructed to stay off the internet, avoid the news and not attend certain portions of trial.

That's usually not realistic though so families are typically given sensitive and horrible info in advance.

 

[Alethea]

As a matter of process it matters what the jurors "know" before a trial because not all evidence that is released is admissible in court. There are rules of evidence that both sides must follow and the defense can move to exclude evidence that was collected improperly or in a manner that violated one of the defendant's constitutional rights. If the jury "knows" something that is found inadmissible, you can instruct them that they cannot consider that piece of evidence in making their decision but in practice you cannot "unring" that bell.

Before trial the court will decide a number of motions from both sides fighting over admissibility. Each side will know what they can and cannot question witnesses about. If a witness testifies to something that the judge has already ruled cannot be admitted as evidence, the other side can move for a mistrial. Again, you can't "unring the bell."

It is much harder to do this in a 24/7 news cycle and non-stop social media coverage of the case. Both sides have to work harder to keep sensitive information contained until its admissibility can be determined.

 

[Layla123]

Because forming an opinion BEFORE trial is a problem when it comes to selecting a jury.

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?