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

[DexterMorgan]

Yeah. Wanting to present a defense like that is one thing, but it would be up to a judge to allow it in the first place.

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

 

[MerryB]

An incredible amount of public interest, is one possible justification.

It’s one thing to release autopsy reports when the whole world isn’t interested in a case. It’s another thing entirely when there is this amount of public interest.

Couple that with findings that are likely to be especially disturbing, I think they have good reason to keep them sealed.

We’ll see what the judge has to say.

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?

 

[Seattle1]

"Watts claimed his wife went "berserk" when he told her he wanted to leave, and get a divorce". That is when she went crazy and killed Celeste.

Right. He better not have any women on the jury. I have been pregnant, and if at 16 weeks a man told me he wanted a divorce, whatever. I didn't have the energy to go crazy! Unless "Thrive" is like a complete miracle drug, which I will reserve opinion.

At that point, I wanted sleep, more sleep, and can I take a nap?!

I'm not familiar with your quote of divorce and berserk reaction. Thought I'd seen it all -- do you have a link for this? Thanks.

 

[gitana1]

@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.

That's an interesting point of view. In the old days in the US, apparently, jurors were expected to know about a case before being picked for a jury.

But as we've seen by the infamous casey anthony case, many potential jurors stated, "Yeah. I'm sorry. I think she's guilty. No one acts like that when their kid is missing unless they're guilty." Some of them said they could set aside their preconceived notion but they were all dismissed per defense request.

Many people find it hard to set aside the judgments they've made based on hearing certain info and the defense would argue that even if they said they could. And likely win.

 

[roteone]

Many places around me you would get huge citations from the HOA for hanging laundry, I've seen places that don't allow grills, also. Also, some have rules about what kind of holiday decorations. They can get very picky!

I know where I live we have rules for housing estates. (quality of building materials etc) But holiday decorations, laundry etc that's insane to me. What does HOA stand for?

 

[MassGuy]

I know where I live we have rules for housing estates. (quality of building materials etc) But holiday decorations, laundry etc that's insane to me. What does HOA stand for?

Home Owners Association.

 

[kiwilaura]

Yes, what doctor is going to admit to over servicing even if he did.

Well they did in the Garnett Spears case, so it does happen. However they also documented his mothers MBP. I don’t think it will be found mentioned in SW case - I really think people are clutching at straws.

As an aside, my own son was diagnosed with periodic fever syndrome. I took him to the doctors countless times before he was diagnosed. Probably the docs were rolling their eyes at me, but I was simply frustrated and knew the situation was not right. Once he was diagnosed, I had to fight for over a year to have his tonsils removed (and once they were, he never got his monthly sickness again). Auto immune runs in our family, just as with BW and CW.

My point is, I suspect any doctor who treated SW and the girls will say that her concerns were valid. What a sad world it’s become when taking a child to the doctor “too often” is seen as anything other than fiercely loving and protective.

 

[MassGuy]

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?

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.

 

[roteone]

Home Owners Association.

Ty. Sounds like it should be higher order association, like the homeowner doesn't seem to have much say lol

 

[Colorado303]

MOD NOTE

Hi everyone, I see that some quotes have broken again. If someone would kindly alert on each post where the quote is broken, I will do my best to fix them. In the meantime, please do not reply with quote to any of those posts. It just makes the cleanup harder.

Also, the snark has to stop. It's a TOS violation and it's not helpful. I know that it can be hard to hold back sometimes, but posting on Websleuths is often an exercise in self-restraint. Please just alert if you are offended by a post or if a post violates TOS.

Finally, I really hope that what I'm reading in this thread that someone on this forum either stated or strongly implied that Shan'ann somehow impregnated herself with her husband's stolen sperm did not actually originate on Websleuths. That theory is so far beyond the realm of reality that I can only hope that you are all joking and using hyperbole.

If that preposterous theory did originate on Websleuths, PLEASE alert on the post(s) where it started so the moderators can handle the situation. In case I'm not being clear, that's not a theory that we will allow any discussion of, period.

Thank you!

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.

 

[NuttMegg]

I'm not familiar with your quote of divorce and berserk reaction. Thought I'd seen it all -- do you have a link for this? Thanks.

I am not that poster. But I followed the link. I think the term berserk was just from the copy writer, and the article was a re-hash of previous articles. https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/dad-accused-of-killing-his-family-doesnt-like-monster-label/

 

[mickey2942]

I'm not familiar with your quote of divorce and berserk reaction. Thought I'd seen it all -- do you have a link for this? Thanks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ing-his-family-doesnt-like-monster-label/amp/

It states "separate", which is pretty much divorce to me.

 

[Layla123]

Post mortem injuries can cause bias sometimes. So she killed the kids but you broke their necks and arms and legs to squeeze them through a tank hole?

That scenario right there would automatically cloud perspective jurors minds from your defense. Jmo

I don’t see how one’s bias would any different if they learned COD outside of the courtroom. Bias is bias, dependent upon the psychological makeup of the juror.

 

[scdiv]

I think CW is ultimately being judged by the crimes he is accused of and the known facts and reported evidence against him. More evidence that we are not privy to will likely come out.

Sure, we can judge CW by his presence in SW's videos, and find certain things to read into or little flags, but for the most part his behavior doesn't show anything major alarming. He's just kind of a dud. Maybe he was seething beneath the surface. But in many of the videos he is engaging with the girls, letting them throw whipped cream at him, climb on him, seems passive, etc. If we were just going by SM presence or videos, he wasn't really doing anything that would have caused someone to do a welfare check on his family. His unexcited reaction to the "we're pregnant" video was telling, but not showing any indication that he was going to murder his wife and children.

We could pick apart many things about CW in the videos, but none of those things are the reasons why I believe he murdered his wife, two daughters, and unborn son.

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully, how do you know?

What other reason do you think they might ask for that?

 

[gitana1]

I think CW is ultimately being judged by the crimes he is accused of and the known facts and reported evidence against him. More evidence that we are not privy to will likely come out.

Sure, we can judge CW by his presence in SW's videos, and find certain things to read into or little flags, but for the most part his behavior doesn't show anything major alarming. He's just kind of a dud. Maybe he was seething beneath the surface. But in many of the videos he is engaging with the girls, letting them throw whipped cream at him, climb on him, seems passive, etc. If we were just going by SM presence or videos, he wasn't really doing anything that would have caused someone to do a welfare check on his family. His unexcited reaction to the "we're pregnant" video was telling, but not showing any indication that he was going to murder his wife.

We could pick apart many things about CW in the videos, but none of those things are the reasons why I believe he murdered his wife, two daughters, and unborn son.

Agreed.

 

[MassGuy]

I think CW is ultimately being judged by the crimes he is accused of and the known facts and reported evidence against him. More evidence that we are not privy to will likely come out.

Sure, we can judge CW by his presence in SW's videos, and find certain things to read into or little flags, but for the most part his behavior doesn't show anything major alarming. He's just kind of a dud. Maybe he was seething beneath the surface. But in many of the videos he is engaging with the girls, letting them throw whipped cream at him, climb on him, seems passive, etc. If we were just going by SM presence or videos, he wasn't really doing anything that would have caused someone to do a welfare check on his family. His unexcited reaction to the "we're pregnant" video was telling, but not showing any indication that he was going to murder his wife.

We could pick apart many things about CW in the videos, but none of those things are the reasons why I believe he murdered his wife, two daughters, and unborn son.

Exactly! Interpreting those videos is entirely subjective, whether you are analyzing CW or SW. I see them as irrelevant for that very reason.

It’s the facts that point to CW’s guilt, not things gleaned from social media videos.

 

[gitana1]

I don’t see how one’s bias would any different if they learned COD outside of the courtroom. Bias is bias, dependent upon the psychological makeup of the juror.

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

 

[gitana1]

Exactly! Interpreting those videos is entirely subjective, whether you are analyzing CW or SW. I see them as irrelevant for that very reason.

It’s the facts that point to CW’s guilt, not things gleaned from social media videos.

Yup. That stuff is good for books later on about the murders. Not typically for determining guilt or innocence.

 

[MassGuy]

Yup. That stuff is good for books later on about the murders. Not typically for determining guilt or innocence.

Esteemed, “best selling author” Nick Van Der Leek would respectfully disagree with you. He’s about to release his second “book” on this case.

My guess is that this one will be entirely based on social media, as it’s not like we’ve had much new information in the past 2 weeks.

It’s going to be terrible.