CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #16

[NanZDrew]

Tax records are public record and usually can be accessed through the County Tax office. Here is the link to their tax records. It tells other information about the property as well.
Login

Here is the main portal. Just type in Chris Watts and you will be able to access lots of property information. When you get to the Login, on the left, just click on the public login.

Btw, Chase actually made their payments.

Property Data Search

 

[NanZDrew]

Here is the main portal. Just type in Chris Watts and you will be able to access lots of property information. When you get to the Login, on the left, just click on the public login.

Btw, Chase actually made their payments.

Property Data Search

And this link will show you building information including a blueprint of the house but it is not that detailed.
Property Data Search

 

[NanZDrew]

Here is the main portal. Just type in Chris Watts and you will be able to access lots of property information. When you get to the Login, on the left, just click on the public login.

Btw, Chase actually made their payments.

Property Data Search

Here is the link to building information including a blueprint of the house.
Property Report

 

[gitana1]

One of my son's was prescribed Aderall and he quit taking it because of terrible side effects. Medications for brain disorders can have terrible side effects.

I'm just trying to find an explanation for his claim that he saw SW strangling the child on the baby monitor. He lied about having an affair but then admitted it when called on it. He lied about the play dates but later admitted that he killed SW and disposed of the bodies. But he stuck to his story about the baby monitor. There has to be a "why."

Because killing his siblings' nieces? Killing his parents' grandchildren? That would be unforgivable.

Killing her because she murdered their kids- that they could forgive.

 

[Jennifer17]

Because killing his siblings' nieces? Killing his parents' grandchildren? That would be unforgivable.

Killing her because she murdered their kids- that they could forgive.

Wasn't he a brave man? Not.

 

[gitana1]

@gitana and bill... do you think that they would get in? is the probative vs. Prejudicial outweighing?

An objection of more prejudicial than probative would be flatly overruled. Yes. They will get in and they will be used to show consciousness of guilt. That objection may be successful if used to prevent admission of things like photos of the babies after autopsy. Things like that. Because such images would highly inflame the jury but not be that relevant to proving any element of the crimes.

Recordings of the defendant a day after his wife supposedly murdered their kids and he lost his mind and took her life? This is highly relevant to whether there is any evidence of diminished capacity or "passion" that could lead to a reduced felony as to consciousness of guilt - was he attempting to conceal the crime? Was he calm and collected as he lied?

Those interviews will come in and much like the phone calls and Diane Sawyer interviews that the jury watched and listened to in deciding whether scott Peterson was guilty of murder, or the interviews the jury in the jodi arias case watched when deciding her guilt or innocence, those interviews will sink him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/celebrity/peterson-trial-jurors-hear-scotts-voice/amp/

 

[gitana1]

As a sentimental aside, I like the name of the kids - the girls and the unborn son. Very nice names.

I agree. Beautiful names.

 

[gitana1]

If CW did suffer a psychotic episode as someone else suggested, the image of SW strangling the child he claims he saw on the baby monitor may have been a hallucination that he believed was real and he needed to intervene. He may still believe this delusion. I think it is entirely possible CW has a mental illness.

He showed zero signs of having a psychotic episode (none of which, from what I have researched, happen suddenly and then resolve within hours), after he murdered his family.

Once again, the attached (Julie Schenecker) is what a psychotic person who kills their family looks like compared to CW just hours after the murders.

 

[gitana1]

What I mean by bizarre behavior is expressing unusual thoughts, odd or rambling speech, gestures, etc. Psychotic disorders are usually preceded by a prodromal phase where they aren’t fully psychotic but still seem “odd”.

ETA: prodromal phase is usually evident in late adolescence/early adulthood.

Yes. And they don't suddenly snap out of it and give calm interviews on a porch. You can tell. I'm sure some of us on here have seen it.

 

[gitana1]

Yes, as to the bolded above. In the Jodi Arias trial, the jury watched a few of her notorious TV interviews, like Inside Edition. And it was as you described---to show her lack of credibility/truthfulness. Her new version of events was quite different from what she told Inside Edition.

So the question is, can CW use his current defense---SW KILLED THEM---even if he doesn't testify? Can he just have the defense show his confession tapes, describing the killings?

If so, then I think they can still bring in these interviews, to showcase his total lack of credibility.

Yes. They can and they will bring in those interviews. Regardless as to what the defense presents or whether he testifies. They did it with scott Peterson. These are very relevant interviews.

As to the confession tapes, the prosecution will undoubtedly present those themselves. They and the interviews will come in and be presented by the prosecution in their case in chief, to prove his guilt.

None of this is "hearsay" either. Because they are considered "admissions" or statements against interest by the defendant, a party to the case, and thus not hearsay per CO law.

Colorado Rules of Evidence rule 801 d 2:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if —

(1)Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with his testimony, or (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him, or

(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant’s authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).

 

[gitana1]

Disappointing as I would have thought that would have been part of their prosecution case in chief to show how he was acting afterwards and trying to cover up. I know that it made a lot of us doubt his story from the beginning! Too bad that the jury would not hear it. I believe it made Jodi Arias case in the case in Chief all of her media interviews.

<modsnip: rude comment> It is highly relevant and admissible evidence in the guilt phase. I am very confident this evidence will be offered by the prosecution and admitted by the court.

It's gold for the state. Incredible evidence.

 

[margarita25]

Yes. They can and they will bring in those interviews. Regardless as to what the defense presents or whether he testifies. They did it with scott Peterson. These are very relevant interviews.

As to the confession tapes, the prosecution will present those themselves. They and the interviews will come in and be presented by the prosecution in their case in chief, to prove his guilt.

None of this is "hearsay" either. Because they are considered "admissions" or statements against interest by the defendant, a party to the case, and thus not hearsay per CO law.

Colorado Rules of Evidence rule 801 d 2:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if —

(1)Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with his testimony, or (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him, or

(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant’s authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).

On the subject of hearsay, and I had asked about this upstream and you may have already answered, and if you did, I apologize that I have either missed it or forgotten the answer already:

What about Shanann’s conversations with her friends, and things she may have said to them about their relationship?

<modsnip: rude> It is highly relevant and admissible evidence in the guilt phase. I am very confident this evidence will be offered by the prosecution and admitted by the court.

It's gold for the state. Incredible evidence.

I hope they add and blowup the screenshot photos (like you have posted) on a huge board in the courtroom.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/img_9686-jpg.145253/

You can tell how much Shan’ann loved her two little girls. There is no way she would have harmed them and I hope the jury sees the truth of who did. I don’t think I will be able to watch this trial and see Shan’ann’s memory desecrated by Monster and his defence team.

I agree 100 percent with all of this gregjrichards. I hope that you are well over there in Scotland!

Has this horrific case made the news over there in your area?

 

[margarita25]

“Rzucek went on to say that his sister excelled at motherhood. “They were always well-dressed and well mannered,” he wrote. “She taught them to be brave and independent, just like Shan’ann. She was very successful and independent, before any man came along — and that’s just the way she wanted it.”“

Shan'ann Watts Brother 'Always Worried About Her and the Girls' But 'Couldn't Protect Them'

 

[gitana1]

On the subject of hearsay, and I had asked about this upstream and you may have already answered, and if you did, I apologize that I have either missed it or forgotten the answer already:

What about Shanann’s conversations with her friends, and things she may have said to them about their relationship?

That comes in. They can come in under Colorado Rules of Evidence Rule 803 1, 2 and 3, depending on what the statements were, and also under rule 804.
Colorado Rules of Evidence - JD Porter LLC

 

[margarita25]

If it turns out that people are falsely inserting themselves into investigations, for example alleging false affairs with CW,etc, I hope that these person(s) will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether the charges be for lying to investigators, obstruction of justice, whatever it might be.

 

[margarita25]

'You Are Nothing but Pure Love.' Murdered Colorado Mom and 2 Daughters Laid to Rest in North Carolina

“The hour-long service in Pinehurst, North Carolina, included no reference to 33-year-old Christopher Watts, the husband and father charged in the killings.”

Snip

“Forbes said Shanann Watts’ family would like to see good come from the tragedy, including a law to recognize the lives of unborn children such as their grandson.

“They do not desire vengeance and death, but justice and life,” Forbes said.”

Snip

“Colorado is one of 12 states without a law broadly allowing for homicide charges in the violent death of fetuses.“

Murdered Colorado Mom and 2 Daughters Laid to Rest

 

[katydid23]

So, is it your opinion that they will come up with another version of the truth? How is that going to look to the jury? Because so far we have the following:

1. CW told NUA that Shanann was on a playdate
2. CW told Coonrod that Shanann was going over to a friends house, but didn’t know the friend’s name
3. CW told Baumhover that Shanann was going to a friends house that day
4. CW told reporters that he had no inclination where Shanann and the girls were
5. After speaking with his father, CW admitted to strangling Shanann to death and hiding the bodies

1-3 are basically the same, but all of them are lies. Do you think they're going to add another one? MOO

Maybe he will dust off the Ninja story and try that one too. ' A male and female, all dressed in black, like Ninjas, came in and took my life, threatened to kill them if I told anyone what happened...'

 

[Seattle1]

I too think it's very likely that LE would have found the bodies without CW's confession. He had very little time to work with, so his workplace would have been a logical place to start looking. His cell phone data, cameras, and security measures (gates, access control points), would have aided LE in this.

Yes, all reports are that Anadarko wasted no time consenting to drone search by LE, and LE located SW's clandestine grave at CERVI sight prior to CW confession. The location of the girls was not provided to LE until after CW was allowed to speak to his Dad, and made his alleged confessed.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Agree. Father Forbes said, “They [Shannan’s family] do not desire vengeance and death, but justice and life.”

Yes I was just about to post that. I heard that too.

 

[katydid23]

If it turns out that people are falsely inserting themselves into investigations, for example alleging false affairs with CW,etc, I hope that these person(s) will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether the charges be for lying to investigators, obstruction of justice, whatever it might be.

Here's what I don't get. This guy is speaking about the FBI and the police. He tells national TV audiences and major press organizations lots of details about the ongoing investigation. He describes evidence that they have reportedly taken from him, and specific things they have told him about the case.

If he was totally LYING, wouldn't the cops put a quick stop to it?

If he was telling the truth, wouldn't the cops put a quick stop to it?


Hmmm, I guess not.