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

[Layla123]

But if the person becomes biased BEFORE they are interviewed for the jury, they may never become a juror.

If they hear about the autopsy results during the trial, that is fine and as it should be.

I’m thinking more about things like how damaging it is for AB to put the notion in everyone’s heads that C.W. did gruesome things to those children while stuffing them in those oil tanks if it isn’t true. I’m thinking the prosecution would be better off getting the facts out there.

 

[Colorado303]

There is a chance he will enter into a plea deal.

I see zero evidence he had counsel when he "confessed".

I don't think the defense will counsel him on the absurdity of his claim. They will double down. I mean the defense will explain to him the issues with people not believing him, how jurors will react to his behavior, etc., but they're not going to tell him he has no chance or that it's absurd, IMO.

This is the kind of murder case criminal defense attorneys find to be an exciting challenge, IMO.

And we see right here, and on the internet that there are plenty of people willing to accept or entertain his story and who do not find it absurd.

But as to that chance of a plea? My feeling is this: The same things that cause a seemingly normal family man to annihilate his family rather than simply filing for divorce are same things that make it almost impossible to admit to what he did, in the cases where the person doesn't also kill themselves.

From what I've seen, these are people with fragile senses of identity who greatly fear the mask slipping and people seeing them for who they really are - an identity that they remain unsure and maybe gen frightened of.

He killed his whole family in part because he didn't want to seem like a jerk who left a pregnant woman and two small children. (Even if he asked for part custody. He would be breaking up a young family and threatening the stability of small children.)

So I think it's very likely he will never confess to it all. If he's afraid of being seen as the bad guy or divorcing his pregnant wife and going off into the sunset with his affair, well strangling his babies to death is clearly much worse.

And sadly, his defense appears (to me) to be doing a great job of casting "doubt" by smearing the reputation and attacking the character of the victim.

I predict much more to come at trial.

Lawyers, if he didn’t have an attorney present will the confession still be admissable as long as someone read CW his Miranda rights?

 

[borndem]

It will be nice when we get toxically to rule out any attempt to OD herself with pills

Here is an easy-to-understand write-up about autopsy toxicology and why it takes so long. They can't just do one test to determine which drugs, etc., were in the blood, stomach contents, vitreous humor, urine, etc., etc. They have to specify which drugs are to be identified.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests#4

 

[mtnlites]

Yes! As well as ruling out that she tried to gouge her eyes out with bobby pins or burn off her own hair.

SW was lucky to have you as a friend. You kind of rock!

 

[Layla123]

I think that in your original post that I responded to you discussed having an actual opinion prior to trial, not a scenario where someone simply knows about the case. That's what I was responding to.

I think anyone who has heard will have an opinion. It’s only natural.

 

[Amonet]

In your professional opinion, how would it taint a potential jury? It is my understanding that the autopsy is just cause/manner of death/toxicology. Forensic information is separate.
MOO

In some cases when the autopsy report is released it's the full autopsy notes. Everything from the skin over the whole body, the bones, the condition and weight of each organ...everything.

The full autopsy report would normally also include any clothing, bags, or blankets found with the deceased.

 

[MassGuy]

Here is an easy-to-understand write-up about autopsy toxicology and why it takes so long. They can't just do one test to determine which drugs, etc., were in the blood, stomach contents, vitreous humor, urine, etc., etc. They have to specify which drugs are to be identified.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests#4

Yeah. I think many people are under the impression that you just take a blood sample, put it in a machine, and it tells you what drugs are in a person’s system. I blame CSI for that.

 

[Layla123]

You would be surprised how many people I know, who don't have smartphones, internet, or pay for cable. They pay for Football ticket NFL, read the sports page, once in awhile. There are alot of folks like that.

They don't watch the news, have isolated jobs, just work, watch football, hang out. Zero interest in news.

I don’t know anybody like that!

 

[Johnny1181]

I think anyone who has heard will have an opinion. It’s only natural.

As fascinating and interesting as crime stories are to some of us, not everyone is as interested. There will be those who have heard of the case, but not looked into it enough or had the interest to form an actual opinion.

This is part of why we are able have unbiased jurors in our system hearing cases all day every day.
imo

 

[Alethea]

Respectfully, would you want someone on a jury judging your guilt or innocence to have the opinion that you were guilty before your trial even started?
Would you trust them to instantly be able to change their thinking and throw out their preconceived notions?

I would not want a biased juror. And a person on a jury who has already made up their mind prior to hearing all of the evidence is biased imo.

MOO

It is my firm belief that most jurors take their duties seriously and will earnestly try to come to the right decision. But you can't take away something that they already know, even if they say they won't rely on it. Most will not rely on it directly, but it will color their views of other evidence. It does not mean the jurors are not trying their best and taking the jury instructions very seriously. It's just that you can't unlearn facts.

 

[Seattle1]

But if the person becomes biased BEFORE they are interviewed for the jury, they may never become a juror.

If they hear about the autopsy results during the trial, that is fine and as it should be.

You and other WS Members are not alone in believing autopsy results should not be released until trial. Colorado recently passed a law to prevent autopsies of minors from being released to media/public but law was vetoed in June 2018 by the Governor.

 

[Amandaaa]

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.

Not *wanting* it released isn’t enough - it’s assumed to be public unless there’s a really good reason to seal it... so someone (media or even a member of the public) can make the request, custodian still has to argue why it shouldn’t be released.

 

[Layla123]

The report wouldn't tell you who caused what.

It will just tell you the injuries sustained. Jmo.

For whatever it’s worth, AB had a forensics expert on who said there may be oil residue from finger and palm prints on the girls necks, and the super glue fusion technique may just lift them off and preserve them. Might happen.

 

[gitana1]

Lawyers, if he didn’t have an attorney present will the confession still be admissable as long as someone read CW his Miranda rights?

Yes. And even in many cases on the absence of a Miranda warning.

 

[nwmouse]

There is a chance he will enter into a plea deal.

I see zero evidence he had counsel when he "confessed".

I don't think the defense will counsel him on the absurdity of his claim. They will double down. I mean the defense will explain to him the issues with people not believing him, how jurors will react to his behavior, etc., but they're not going to tell him he has no chance or that it's absurd, IMO.

This is the kind of murder case criminal defense attorneys find to be an exciting challenge, IMO.

And we see right here, and on the internet that there are plenty of people willing to accept or entertain his story and who do not find it absurd.

But as to that chance of a plea? My feeling is this: The same things that cause a seemingly normal family man to annihilate his family rather than simply filing for divorce are same things that make it almost impossible to admit to what he did, in the cases where the person doesn't also kill themselves.

From what I've seen, these are people with fragile senses of identity who greatly fear the mask slipping and people seeing them for who they really are - an identity that they remain unsure and maybe gen frightened of.

He killed his whole family in part because he didn't want to seem like a jerk who left a pregnant woman and two small children. (Even if he asked for part custody. He would be breaking up a young family and threatening the stability of small children.)

So I think it's very likely he will never confess to it all. If he's afraid of being seen as the bad guy or divorcing his pregnant wife and going off into the sunset with his affair, well strangling his babies to death is clearly much worse.

And sadly, his defense appears (to me) to be doing a great job of casting "doubt" by smearing the reputation and attacking the character of the victim.

I predict much more to come at trial.

Sorry if this is a silly question.

If CW decided he wanted to tell the truth and not go through a jury trial, would his defense team encourage him to rather go through trial and be found guilty or innocent by jury?

Does a defense team ever advise a client to plead guilty and avoid a jury trial (in a possible DP case) because the case is so riddled with the defendant's guilt that its pointless going to trial and will just incur more pain and suffering?

 

[Amandaaa]

The report wouldn't tell you who caused what.

It will just tell you the injuries sustained. Jmo.

Exactly. This report will give the “how” - the prosecution has to prove the “who”...

 

[mtnlites]

You would be surprised how many people I know, who don't have smartphones, internet, or pay for cable. They pay for Football ticket NFL, read the sports page, once in awhile. There are alot of folks like that.

They don't watch the news, have isolated jobs, just work, watch football, hang out. Zero interest in news.

That is a

I don’t know anybody like that!

That's a cross between me and my husband. We haven't had phones in 3 years-no landlines, no cell phones, etc. If there is an absolute emergency then we Skype. I've probably spoken to someone on the phone approximately 5 times in the past 2 years. My job is isolated-I work from home and live 20 minutes to the closest town. That town doesn't even have a Walmart. We don't have cable. We've only had internet for the past year. It didn't reach this far out before then. I could only use it when I was traveling. While I keep up with the news, my husband does not. He couldn't tell you a thing in the world that is going on, unless it's something I have relayed to him. He does run a Fantasy Football website and talks to people about sports, but that is the extent of his current event knowledge.

And, amongst our friends, we get (good-naturedly) made fun of for being so much on the grid. Many of our friends don't even have electricity o running water. It's not uncommon where we live. People choose to live this way.

 

[Alethea]

You would be surprised how many people I know, who don't have smartphones, internet, or pay for cable. They pay for Football ticket NFL, read the sports page, once in awhile. There are alot of folks like that.

They don't watch the news, have isolated jobs, just work, watch football, hang out. Zero interest in news.

I use my husband as an example. He is extremely connected and well-read but primarily follows tech and financial news. If it's not in the Wall Street Journal or on the Hacker News homepage (from Y Combinator), he probably hasn't heard of it. He will follow the local news for our state but he doesn't really understand why I follow crime stories from across the country. He thinks of it more as my hobby stemming from my interest and work in law than something that everyone does and I think he's right.

Certain cases do capture the public's attention but more as a passing story than something most people will check on everyday. Present company, obviously, excluded.

 

[human]

You would be surprised how many people I know, who don't have smartphones, internet, or pay for cable. They pay for Football ticket NFL, read the sports page, once in awhile. There are alot of folks like that.

They don't watch the news, have isolated jobs, just work, watch football, hang out. Zero interest in news.

There are many people who simply are not interested in crime. Tbey may read about it a couple of times and that’s it. They have other interests which may include sports but also may including doing sports themselves.

With work, hobbies, families, many people have other priorities. It does not mean that they are unintelligent.

Actually, I have to read on here because I know no one in real life who is interested in crime of any kind. A cursory, “Oh , yeah.” A few little facts they know and that is the extent of interest.

 

[MsBetsy]

I do remember reading that sometime today but it sounded like, per the VI's reply, there was another reason for the change.

Yes, I am curious about that too..