CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #15

[Steelhead]

Regarding the "emotional conversation" comment on CW's interview, I was thinking all along, and you all may have too, that the interviewer asked CW if they had an argument the night before she went missing. But that's not what he asked. He asked at 4:46 "This might be a tough question, did you guys get into an argument before she left?" I take that to mean before she left for Arizona, not before she went missing. Anyone else catch that? That leads me to think that Shanann told CW she wanted to separate after she returned home from NC, but before she left for Arizona. Which could be why CW refers to the "last few days" as being rough, or whatever he said.

Hope it's okay to put a YouTube link?

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Bear with me, please. (Sorry for the MEGO.) I want to try to explain, from my perspective only, why I think it is relevant and appropriate to discuss some things that some of you are interpreting as victim bashing.

So let's assume for the sake of this argument that SW was genuinely just as kind and sweet and good-hearted as she presents herself on SM, that she doesn't have a mean bone in her body, that she was the perfect wife and mother doing the best she could while suffering from a chronic health condition, and that she didn't have any sort of mental illness or anything like that. She is awesome, and there was no reason in the world for a rational person to dislike her, much less kill her or the children. In short, nothing that happened was her fault. Okay?

Every trial lawyer worth their salt will have a "Theory of the Case" for every case they try. A Theory of the Case is a short, concise statement explaining who did what and why. The shorter the better, the simpler the better. This statement, if true, helps the jurors interpret the individual facts and put them in a larger context.

Think of it like this: each piece of evidence is like a piece to a puzzle. We've got all these pieces, but what kind of picture are we trying to make? Is it a barn? A horse? A lion in the zoo? The Theory of the Case is like the picture on the box: when we put all these puzzle pieces together, you should end up with a picture that's on the box. The prosecution will say, we think these puzzle pieces will fit together to form the image of a cow. The defense will say that the puzzle pieces make a picture of a chicken. The jury has to decide which theory is more consistent with the evidence that they are presented through the witness stand. And once the jurors start to see a particular picture emerge ("Hey, it does sort of look like a cow"), then they will start to interpret facts (puzzle pieces) in a way that is consistent with that image ("Oh, this is not a chicken foot, it's a cow's tail!").

As I said, the Theory of the Case contains three parts: Who did What, and Why? "Who" is the defendant, "What" is the crime, and "Why" is motive. From a legal perspective, all that matters is the Who and the What. Motive is very rarely an element of a crime, and the prosecution is not required to prove why a crime was committed. But we all want to know motive because we want to make sense of why crimes happen. It is especially important in tragic cases such as this one, because most people (myself included) can't wrap their heads around Why a seemingly loving father would kill his perfect wife and beautiful children. So we badly want to try to understand some reason or motivation that explains the Why, and if we don't find that motivation, then we might start looking for other theories that would explain it better. ("It's not a cow, it's a unicorn! NOT GUILTY!")

So, the prosecution is going to need to come up with a Theory of the Case such as "He killed her because he was jealous that she was earning more money than he was." To break that down, "He (Who) killed her (What) because _____ (Why)."

To think about Why, we have to get inside the Defendant's mind and walk around. You and I know that the Wife was sincere and perfect. But Husband killed her. Why?

If the Why is that Husband was jealous because Wife was earning more than him, would that mean we were blaming Wife---("If she hadn't been so successful, he wouldn't have had to kill her. It's HER fault!"). No! That's absurd. Her being successful isn't her fault. His jealousy is his problem.

But when we try to suggest a reason why Husband hated Wife so bad and was so angry, it might sound on its face like we are blaming Wife. "He killed her because.....she wouldn't stop eating crackers in the bed!" A person might say, "Hey, you are blaming the victim here and that is against the TOS!" No, that's not what we are doing, we are providing the motive to complete the Theory of the Case.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry again for the length. I have a hard time getting my point across sometimes.

Thank you for clarifying this.

 

[Bill Carson]

BBM
What does this mean? Really lazy?

RL = Real Life. In other words, husbands they know in real life.

 

[NuttMegg]

Anyone who does that kind of task on a routine basis will have a battery powered impact driver at their disposal. It would be a one minute job.

Even if you have to use a socket and ratchet it wouldn't take that long. Either way, I don't see how it could have an impact on the overall timeline of what was possible.

I wonder if the tanks would be lit up in the night.

 

[Talisman]

I came across this statement and I thought it was worth sharing.
To be intolerant of another viewpoint provides a huge disadvantage when it comes to being able to have any critical conversation. Have fun with the surface level he-said-she-said gossip, because that’s about the extent of what your interactions will be diminished to if you choose to limit yourself to intolerance.

! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Bear with me, please. (Sorry for the MEGO.) I want to try to explain, from my perspective only, why I think it is relevant and appropriate to discuss some things that some of you are interpreting as victim bashing.

So let's assume for the sake of this argument that SW was genuinely just as kind and sweet and good-hearted as she presents herself on SM, that she doesn't have a mean bone in her body, that she was the perfect wife and mother doing the best she could while suffering from a chronic health condition, and that she didn't have any sort of mental illness or anything like that. She is awesome, and there was no reason in the world for a rational person to dislike her, much less kill her or the children. In short, nothing that happened was her fault. Okay?

Every trial lawyer worth their salt will have a "Theory of the Case" for every case they try. A Theory of the Case is a short, concise statement explaining who did what and why. The shorter the better, the simpler the better. This statement, if true, helps the jurors interpret the individual facts and put them in a larger context.

Think of it like this: each piece of evidence is like a piece to a puzzle. We've got all these pieces, but what kind of picture are we trying to make? Is it a barn? A horse? A lion in the zoo? The Theory of the Case is like the picture on the box: when we put all these puzzle pieces together, you should end up with a picture that's on the box. The prosecution will say, we think these puzzle pieces will fit together to form the image of a cow. The defense will say that the puzzle pieces make a picture of a chicken. The jury has to decide which theory is more consistent with the evidence that they are presented through the witness stand. And once the jurors start to see a particular picture emerge ("Hey, it does sort of look like a cow"), then they will start to interpret facts (puzzle pieces) in a way that is consistent with that image ("Oh, this is not a chicken foot, it's a cow's tail!").

As I said, the Theory of the Case contains three parts: Who did What, and Why? "Who" is the defendant, "What" is the crime, and "Why" is motive. From a legal perspective, all that matters is the Who and the What. Motive is very rarely an element of a crime, and the prosecution is not required to prove why a crime was committed. But we all want to know motive because we want to make sense of why crimes happen. It is especially important in tragic cases such as this one, because most people (myself included) can't wrap their heads around Why a seemingly loving father would kill his perfect wife and beautiful children. So we badly want to try to understand some reason or motivation that explains the Why, and if we don't find that motivation, then we might start looking for other theories that would explain it better. ("It's not a cow, it's a unicorn! NOT GUILTY!")

So, the prosecution is going to need to come up with a Theory of the Case such as "He killed her because he was jealous that she was earning more money than he was." To break that down, "He (Who) killed her (What) because _____ (Why)."

To think about Why, we have to get inside the Defendant's mind and walk around. You and I know that the Wife was sincere and perfect. But Husband killed her. Why?

If the Why is that Husband was jealous because Wife was earning more than him, would that mean we were blaming Wife---("If she hadn't been so successful, he wouldn't have had to kill her. It's HER fault!"). No! That's absurd. Her being successful isn't her fault. His jealousy is his problem.

But when we try to suggest a reason why Husband hated Wife so bad and was so angry, it might sound on its face like we are blaming Wife. "He killed her because.....she wouldn't stop eating crackers in the bed!" A person might say, "Hey, you are blaming the victim here and that is against the TOS!" No, that's not what we are doing, we are providing the motive to complete the Theory of the Case.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry again for the length. I have a hard time getting my point across sometimes.

Bravo!!!!
BTW - I remember that song from back in the day. Now it'll be playing in my head for the next couple of hours.

 

[Nah]

So sorry. I just realized you weren't asking what BBM and SBM meant. Ugh.

Just quoting this one because it’s short, but actually wanted to reply to your response in a past thread regarding the video of the third baby reveal....

I totally got what you were saying. I think it might have just been one of the straws on the camel’s back, though. It’s probable she was high energy and he was not, and she could have been a demanding personality and he was not, etc. That’s all possible. But of course, many wives are just like that, and their husbands never kill them.

Likely, the husband already had major and multiple issues...and these small personality rubs just made him more angry. But you don’t kill your family unless you already have major issues. So I don’t think that her social media presence really drove him to anything. I mean, if he really hated it, he could have told her to knock it off RIGHT NOW and see how that went.

<modsnip: off limits>

 

[cottonweaver]

@RickshawFan
Post #525
Thread #14

I'm just not sure what I'm missing in the video & pictures you referenced.
Many posters liked and agreed with you. It leads me to think my brain may be wired wrong

No, But, honestly what am I misreading?

I see a young woman (in video you referenced) that seems at peace and content with her life.
I don't see 'phony'. It doesn't make me feel 'creepy', nor do the family pictures.

I know nothing about MLM. Only Amway two decades ago - a friend's husband was selling it. That's it, nada, except for that.

I'm wondering if people, for some odd reason, feel a jealousy toward Shanann because her experience with MLM was positive? Not in any way saying you feel that way. Just truly cannot understand all the negativity about Shanann...? Several posters agree with you - What Am I Missing?

Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is jaded Why can't a person post their beliefs, that they are content, and, YES, happy with life? Why are people all too eager to smear those people?

I, for one, am so glad that the last few years of her life she smiled a lot.
Glad that she enjoyed her much too short life & posted 'happy' moments.

So, what the heck is wrong with me?
Why am I not seeing what so many of you are seeing? What Am I Missing here? Serious question.

Tia

Ok I went back and had a quick look at both. Reply is quite long but have left loads out!

I think we have to bear in mind that the SM accounts are a marketing tool.

I think Shanann is great at it. As I've said before, I can see her being really popular on a sales channel, a QVC or equivalent. The vids & posts have the same quality , that intimacy & positivity, except in her home & on your device instead of on the big TV screen, in your home.

Think what I have to hold in my mind when I watch them is - what is the product. Is it the 3 steps, eg the patch?
I think it's quite hard to sell a patch, it's pretty dull. From a few videos and posts I have seen, across all 3 SM accounts & the MLM training guidance ( and I watched a few CEO speeches - the emphasis is on "sharing") You sell the benefit to your life & personal achievements. Basically the product is your life ( because it's hard to make proven & specific product claims) you sell feelings etc. I can see why SW would be achieving more than most distributors. She is dedicated to it & really good at it.

Cause it's a marketing tool I can see why that OP u posted might say s/he's cynical about a promotional tool , in shorthand. (I can't speak for him so I'm just summarising) We're all consumer savvy these days aren't we?
I think there are going to be tensions when you're selling your life, you have to omit & exclude stuff. It's part of the SOP.

I follow some people who use SM every day for their work, posting often and some of them never post anything about their personal life ( wouldn't know a single thing about them.) Some also have a separate account with a diff name for their personal shares.

I don't agree that pointing out the diff between the marketing & the reality we're dealing with - loads of revelations & queries about double lives/
impending separation? a work affair etc - on a victim-friendly crime sleuthing site means those questions are necessarily coming from envy.

I get what you're saying re "jaded" I think we're all consumer savvy & nosey & prone to theorising & speculating on the whys, hows, timings, motivations, background. If we weren't we wouldn't be WS members. Well I shouldn't say "all of us", perhaps, but I'd count myself in that ^

 

[Bill Carson]

I wonder if the tanks would be lit up in the night.

You mean so he could see what he was doing, or that other people might see him doing it?

If you go back and look at that youtube video that PommyMommy posted, you'll see how remote this place is. It looks like the tanks sit down in a little depression or valley, where you could barely see the tanks from a distance, and even then you can only see the tops of the tanks. It looks to me like you could carry dead bodies in the broad daylight and nobody would be able to see it. He picked a very good location from a privacy standpoint.

 

[NuttMegg]

You mean so he could see what he was doing, or that other people might see him doing it?

If you go back and look at that youtube video that PommyMommy posted, you'll see how remote this place is. It looks like the tanks sit down in a little depression or valley, where you could barely see the tanks from a distance, and even then you can only see the tops of the tanks. It looks to me like you could carry dead bodies in the broad daylight and nobody would be able to see it. He picked a very good location from a privacy standpoint.

Unless he had to drive through that ranch house/arch area, he might be noted, or he might be restricted as to hours, or if he used he own vehicle earlier to dump his kids, he might not have had access? Re the lights, I was going back to how Ray said they would be easy to open, the bolts, that is. I guess he could have used a flashlight anyway. Monday morning it was already 80 deg and the sun was up, per AB.

 

[Steelhead]

@PommyMommy
I believe posting a link from SW FB (not screenshot) is well within the TOS and directives Tricia has provided previously.
I have to jump off for a bit for RL, but didn’t want to leave you hanging. Here are the details I noted:


02/14/2018 - SW FB love video:
7:20 “can’t have an R8, have THREE, two little kiddos”
Shanann Watts

6:45 begins this topic
04/17/2018 - CO winds
5:45 shows deck, backyard, in progress houses by builder, where roads backing up to house will be paved (could’ve been finished and paved by end of July, not sure)
Backyard and backside road, newer housing in development

Maybe she was pregnant, accidentally slipped the news because she wasn't ready to announce it yet (maybe too soon), then subsequently lost the baby?

 

[TexasTS]

You mean so he could see what he was doing, or that other people might see him doing it?

If you go back and look at that youtube video that PommyMommy posted, you'll see how remote this place is. It looks like the tanks sit down in a little depression or valley, where you could barely see the tanks from a distance, and even then you can only see the tops of the tanks. It looks to me like you could carry dead bodies in the broad daylight and nobody would be able to see it. He picked a very good location from a privacy standpoint.

Plus, he could probably navigate to the site in the dark without lightning or headlights on vehicle. Maybe it was a full moon that night where he didn't need artifical lights!

 

[katydid23]

Oh ty sweetie pie! This was driving me nuts because I knew I had seen a video.
Thread was closed earlier this morning for me to respond back you from last night re: SW SM contents and your viewing thereof, so I typed an saved:
I had peeked in a couple times, but last night I was looking for Alexa placement then what could’ve been in a bag (comforter, etc). So I was all up in her business on FB and IG.

I started to feel like I was being very intrusive, which I know doesn’t make sense given he SM was not private, but that’s just how I felt, so had to bail. Plus, some of the videos are just heartbreaking given what happened.

Digging in that deep and personal though, I did see a couple interesting or at least new to me things. One was a video in Feb 2018 talking about test driving cars. Mentioned a certain car wasn’t realistic for three kids, then changed it to two. Again, FEB of this year. IMO, it means they were actively trying at least at that time... at minimum, serious discussions of a third were occurring between the two of them. IMO.

*This does not however change my stance that she was the one hesitant to have a 3rd. Purely from having a sister die from Lupus post 2nd pregnancy. It just took its toll on an already fragile body. She had to be talked into it, wish she hadn’t given in. But ultimately I know she could’ve also said no. Or, MOExperience could be clouding me a bit, I admit.
Yes, I’m a little all over the place today

wow, I missed something. BBM-- WHO had a sister that died from Lupus post 2nd pregnancy? SW did?

 

[Layla123]

Bear with me, please. (Sorry for the MEGO.) I want to try to explain, from my perspective only, why I think it is relevant and appropriate to discuss some things that some of you are interpreting as victim bashing.

So let's assume for the sake of this argument that SW was genuinely just as kind and sweet and good-hearted as she presents herself on SM, that she doesn't have a mean bone in her body, that she was the perfect wife and mother doing the best she could while suffering from a chronic health condition, and that she didn't have any sort of mental illness or anything like that. She is awesome, and there was no reason in the world for a rational person to dislike her, much less kill her or the children. In short, nothing that happened was her fault. Okay?

Every trial lawyer worth their salt will have a "Theory of the Case" for every case they try. A Theory of the Case is a short, concise statement explaining who did what and why. The shorter the better, the simpler the better. This statement, if true, helps the jurors interpret the individual facts and put them in a larger context.

Think of it like this: each piece of evidence is like a piece to a puzzle. We've got all these pieces, but what kind of picture are we trying to make? Is it a barn? A horse? A lion in the zoo? The Theory of the Case is like the picture on the box: when we put all these puzzle pieces together, you should end up with a picture that's on the box. The prosecution will say, we think these puzzle pieces will fit together to form the image of a cow. The defense will say that the puzzle pieces make a picture of a chicken. The jury has to decide which theory is more consistent with the evidence that they are presented through the witness stand. And once the jurors start to see a particular picture emerge ("Hey, it does sort of look like a cow"), then they will start to interpret facts (puzzle pieces) in a way that is consistent with that image ("Oh, this is not a chicken foot, it's a cow's tail!").

As I said, the Theory of the Case contains three parts: Who did What, and Why? "Who" is the defendant, "What" is the crime, and "Why" is motive. From a legal perspective, all that matters is the Who and the What. Motive is very rarely an element of a crime, and the prosecution is not required to prove why a crime was committed. But we all want to know motive because we want to make sense of why crimes happen. It is especially important in tragic cases such as this one, because most people (myself included) can't wrap their heads around Why a seemingly loving father would kill his perfect wife and beautiful children. So we badly want to try to understand some reason or motivation that explains the Why, and if we don't find that motivation, then we might start looking for other theories that would explain it better. ("It's not a cow, it's a unicorn! NOT GUILTY!")

So, the prosecution is going to need to come up with a Theory of the Case such as "He killed her because he was jealous that she was earning more money than he was." To break that down, "He (Who) killed her (What) because _____ (Why)."

To think about Why, we have to get inside the Defendant's mind and walk around. You and I know that the Wife was sincere and perfect. But Husband killed her. Why?

If the Why is that Husband was jealous because Wife was earning more than him, would that mean we were blaming Wife---("If she hadn't been so successful, he wouldn't have had to kill her. It's HER fault!"). No! That's absurd. Her being successful isn't her fault. His jealousy is his problem.

But when we try to suggest a reason why Husband hated Wife so bad and was so angry, it might sound on its face like we are blaming Wife. "He killed her because.....she wouldn't stop eating crackers in the bed!" A person might say, "Hey, you are blaming the victim here and that is against the TOS!" No, that's not what we are doing, we are providing the motive to complete the Theory of the Case.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry again for the length. I have a hard time getting my point across sometimes.

I think you’re going to drive yourself crazy trying to figure out a why. There is no logical reason why C.W. killed Shanann, Bella, and CeCe. The logical solution to CW’s problems would have been to solve them, using smart thinking, without killing anybody.

You want to know what was in his head when he did what he did, but only he knows, and he’s not going to tell you. His words and actions were so contradictory, none of it makes sense, and he’s a liar who is capable of doing unspeakable things, so you can’t believe a word that he says.

You’re going to have to chalk it up to CW was screwed up. Maybe, his family and friends might have stories to tell, but so far they’re not talking. I’ve come across two people who knew him, a teacher from when he was in high school and a friend who went to that school with him, and they’re just as shocked as we are.

Maybe, further down the line more people will come forward, maybe they’ll make a Dateline, maybe they’ll write a book, but until there’s either a trial or a plea deal, it looks like those who know aren’t going to be talking, and you’re left to speculate without enough information to come to any conclusion with any certainty.

 

[Jennifer17]

wow, I missed something. BBM-- WHO had a sister that died from Lupus post 2nd pregnancy? SW did?

I took to mean the poster's sister.

 

[Gardenista]

Thanks, I am really interested in the mechanics of the crude oil burials. A few days ago someone said there was a video showing that there was just a latch, the person pushes down, and voila, the tank cover or manhole comes up. Also a few days ago someone said the tanks were inactive. Since it takes me about an hour to change a pickup tire, what with stubborn lug nuts, I can hardly imagine opening those tanks so quickly unless he did it earlier. I wonder if there is some alarm when the tank is opened. Maybe not one that can be heard on site, but a digital one monitored in the office.

That was me and I wish I could give you the link, but it's in one of the FB groups and we aren't allowed to link to those. I also tried finding it on youtube, but never could. It was a professional video and looked like it was produced for an oil company.

 

[Bill Carson]

Plus, he could probably navigate to the site in the dark without lightning or headlights on vehicle. Maybe it was a full moon that night where he didn't need artifical lights!

Yes, but turning off your headlights looks very suspicious and will draw attention immediately if you are seen. And the brake lights would still light up unless he took pains to disable them.

Many times, there are oil hauling trucks coming and going from oil tanks like that around the clock, so another truck wouldn't be suspicious necessarily.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Regarding the "emotional conversation" comment on CW's interview, I was thinking all along, and you all may have too, that the interviewer asked CW if they had an argument the night before she went missing. But that's not what he asked. He asked at 4:46 "This might be a tough question, did you guys get into an argument before she left?" I take that to mean before she left for Arizona, not before she went missing. Anyone else catch that? That leads me to think that Shanann told CW she wanted to separate after she returned home from NC, but before she left for Arizona. Which could be why CW refers to the "last few days" as being rough, or whatever he said.

Hope it's okay to put a YouTube link?

I knew right away. He's scared witless over the sniffer dogs, slurring words, face,and neck muscles twitching, and darting eyes.

 

[molly1255]

Denial. Optimistic go-getters like Shanann never want to believe that things are as bad as they are. Add to that CW's narcissistic gaslighting, and I think she truly believed she was making that happy life she so desperately wanted by just believing hard enough.

I know because I've been there. Think about all the pop culture stuff out there like The Secret and Wayne Dyer that tell hopeful people like Shanann (and the younger me) that "words create worlds"--anything you dream of can be made real with enough positive thinking!

Poor sweet Shanann.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[castilloisno1]

@Bill Carson excellent post on how the defense and prosecution develop their cases...learned a lot from your explanation