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

[Jennifer17]

I agree. Hiding it from LE or the search dogs. He probably didn't have time to clean his truck before LE was called.IMO

And he had to have done that after the police and NUA left. Probably on Monday night.
He could hardly be seen out washing it when his wife and children were missing.

 

[margarita25]

Thank you! I was thinking he initially said 2 a.m. but couldn't remember what time he claimed he left.

So I’ve been trying to imagine everything that could have been said (by both parties) in the “emotional conversation” to spark the explosion, so to speak, IF not premeditated.
So, considering he’s the murderer of everyone imo, what did SHE say to him to set him off, IF he snapped:

“I’m leaving you..”
-this might not bother him if he had a mistress

“I’m filing for divorce (And keeping the house)”
-expensive

“I’m taking the kids”
-If I can’t have them you can’t either

 

[pocketaccent]

Remember, LE got there quickly thanks to NU. He had not fully cleaned up yet imo. We do not know what the examination of the physical evidence at the crime scene has revealed. Who knows what luminal, fiber analysis, etc etc might have uncovered.

So thanks to NU, he wasn't able to clean up before LE showed up. But was he going to clean up after LE left?

No, he still didn't clean up. He slept well Monday night. On Tuesday, he was busy interviewing.

Then on Wednesday, LE found the pillow cases and a sheet in the kitchen trash can. He was arrested that night.
This guy clearly doesn't know how to clean up or stage the scene.

 

[margarita25]

So thanks to NU, he wasn't able to clean up before LE showed up. But was he going to clean up after LE left?

No, he still didn't clean up. He slept well Monday night. On Tuesday, he was busy interviewing.

Then on Wednesday, LE found the pillow cases and a sheet in the kitchen trash can. He was arrested that night.
This guy clearly doesn't know how to clean up or stage the scene.

Again, this is why I wonder about level of planning here.

 

[KALI]

I have an awful question.
How big are an average 3 and 4 year old necks?
I noticed in the charging documents that strangulation and perhaps a weapon was used.
So, I am thinking a garrett and rope of some sort to make the weapon.
That would certainly take fore thought.
To create the weapon.
I think that may be why his defence attorneys specifically asked for DNA evidence from the girls necks.
Because he did not use his hands to strangle them, he used a garret that he made ahead of time.

 

[MerryB]

So I’ve been trying to imagine everything that could have been said (by both parties) in the “emotional conversation” to spark the explosion, so to speak.

So, considering he’s the murderer of everyone imo, what did SHE say to him to set him off, if he snapped and this wasn’t premeditated:

“I’m leaving you..”
-this might not bother him if he had a mistress

“I’m filing for divorce?”
-expensive

“I’m taking the kids?”
-If I can’t have them you cant either

What about “I’ll never let you leave us!” ??

 

[borndem]

I watched the same video, CW: Looking for the oil well

It is VERY remote. I am convinced he did not intend for the bodies to be found.

I also believe if he'd had his chance to set the scene, and wasn't confronted with strong evidence of guilt by LE causing him to "confess" (make up his new story on the fly), that there's a good chance they'd still be missing.

With SW's body probably partially exposed -- or at least not buried deeply enuff, I'm thinking her body would have been found sooner rather than later -- unless he planned to return to the site and put her body in the tank, bury her body much deeper or move her body to another location.

 

[Jennifer17]

So thanks to NU, he wasn't able to clean up before LE showed up. But was he going to clean up after LE left?

No, he still didn't clean up. He slept well Monday night. On Tuesday, he was busy interviewing.

Then on Wednesday, LE found the pillow cases and a sheet in the kitchen trash can. He was arrested that night.
This guy clearly doesn't know how to clean up or stage the scene.

I really believe that he thought that they were going to believe his story that she just ran off with the children. I think that he was going to get rid of stuff but didn't realise how quick LE would be on to him.
We see people missing for weeks before LE get suspicious when their bank accounts have not been accessed and relatives have not heard from them.

 

[Jennifer17]

I have an awful question.
How big are an average 3 and 4 year old necks?
I noticed in the charging documents that strangulation and perhaps a weapon was used.
So, I am thinking a garrett and rope of some sort to make the weapon.
That would certainly take fore thought.
To create the weapon.
I think that may be why his defence attorneys specifically asked for DNA evidence from the girls necks.
Because he did not use his hands to strangle them, he used a garret that he made ahead of time.

I think that the mix up about weapons being able to be gathered by LE was just a form document that covered all or any weapons used in the crime.

 

[pocketaccent]

Again, this is why I wonder about level of planning here.

I think he lacked brain required in planning.

 

[Shekkiec]

I really believe that he thought that they were going to believe his story that she just ran off with the children. I think that he was going to get rid of stuff but didn't realise how quick LE would be on to him.
We see people missing for weeks before LE get suspicious when their bank accounts have not been accessed and relatives have not heard from them.

The only thing IMO was SW had constant contact with not only friends but family and neighbors. There were neighbors with children , who played with the girls. The neighbors could even see him grilling . I can’t imagine him thinking her family would believe she would run off , and not run to them .

 

[Bill Carson]

With respect, you are mistating the law. An admission by a party opponent is not a hearsay exception. It is not hearsay at all. Colorado Rules of Evidence Rule 801 d 2.

We all learn that in law school as the law on the that is based on the common law and is virtually the same federally and in every state.

I feel it is important to be accurate when we hold ourselves out to be professionals, because our friends here rely on our expert opinions to be reliable.

"Exceptions" and not hearsay at all are two different things.

Also, no. That was not the original question. The original question was about the media interviews. People were worried those would not come in. Your response to that was that you couldn't see how those interviews would be relevant to the guilt or innocence phases of the trial. People responded that they were disappointed. I explained that you are incorrect. That's not meant to be attacking. That's my professional opinion.

We see media interviews come in at trial in the guilt phase, regularly, when the defendant does NOT testify. I cited to a famous example - Scott Peterson.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/celebrity/peterson-trial-jurors-hear-scotts-voice/amp/

See below:

Everyone please read this response in the respectful tone in which it is intended.

@gitana1.... [Sigh]. Now you've gone and made me do it. Now you've gone and made me look up the Rules of Evidence. (I'm a Colorado divorce lawyer---we don't use the Rules of Evidence. (This is an exaggeration, but not much of one.)) I'm restating portions of your post in purple for clarification.

Yes, you are technically correct. I mischaracterized the statement of a party opponent as an exception to the hearsay rule when technically the statement is by definition not hearsay. Sorry.

However in my mind, the distinction has always been without a difference. The rule is drafted in a very confusing way. First, they define the term. "'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." CRE 801(c). BUT, even if it meets that definition, it is still not hearsay IF it is a "prior statement by the witness"... OR an "admission by a party opponent." CRE 801(d)(1 & 2). Most normal people (lawyers not being normal) would read that and say that the two things at the bottom (prior statement and admission) were exceptions to the general rule, but they would (technically) be wrong, because there are explicit exceptions defined in Rules 803 & 804 (the difference between them being whether the witness (declarant) is available to testify or not.

"We all learn that in law school as the law on the that is based on the common law and is virtually the same federally and in every state."

When I was in law school in Texas , we were required to understand the distinctions between the (then) Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Evidence, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Evidence. That was a booger. And a long time ago. I should read the Rules more frequently than I do, but I can assure you that the divorce lawyers I try cases against don't know squat about evidence. It's sad.

"I feel it is important to be accurate when we hold ourselves out to be professionals, because our friends here rely on our expert opinions to be reliable."

That's why I don't want to be verified---because I want to be here and discuss things without my lawyer hat on. I'll let you be the expert. I do find it frustrating when I try to chime in on something I know about only to be corrected. But that's okay.

"Also, no. That was not the original question. . . ."

Maybe I was confused. I could have sworn that someone asked at some point that if CW wanted to maintain the theory he posited in his "confession," could they just offer his videotaped confession as his testimony. I apologize if I have conflated the different issues here. That was the question I was trying to answer.

"We see media interviews come in at trial in the guilt phase, regularly, when the defendant does NOT testify. I cited to a famous example - Scott Peterson."

You've got me at a disadvantage. The last big trial I watched closely was the OJ Simpson case. I will say, however, that I see these crazy, long criminal trials from different states, and they go on and on for weeks, and the judges let the attorneys go far and wide with evidence that is not (IMO) relevant to the crime that was allegedly committed. So IMO, just because a judge in Peterson (or whatever) allowed it doesn't mean that it should happen. But whatever.

I'll consider the verification thingy. If I do it, then I would hope that we could respectfully have differences of opinion.

Have a nice day.

ETA: I "replied" to you comment, but it doesn't appear above. Not sure why. Weird.

 

[Layla123]

I agree. Hiding it from LE or the search dogs. He probably didn't have time to clean his truck before LE was called.IMO

Makes sense, he must have been freaking out. NU called him and told him SW was missing, when he acted unconcerned, she told him things weren’t right, and she was going to call LE. At that point he said he was coming home.

 

[Jennifer17]

The only thing IMO was SW had constant contact with not only friends but family and neighbors. There were neighbors with children , who played with the girls. The neighbors could even see him grilling . I can’t imagine him thinking her family would believe she would run off , and not run to them .

I think that we are all in agreement with that, but it seems that that did not occur to him.

 

[margarita25]

I think he lacked brain required in planning.

See I wonder about this as well. As I mentioned just earlier, Shanann said in her video he was quite booksmart. I’m not so sure he was not smart enough to plan better and wondering if he had he actually planned this out he might have planned it better...idk...

Could the girls have told him something? I’m wondering if something happened with the girls now.

Did Shanann complain about something when she got home?

Sigh whatever the reason there is no justification. Just trying to make sense of the nonsensical.

 

[Shekkiec]

I think that we are all in agreement with that, but it seems that that did not occur to him.

Do you think the reason it didn’t occur to him was that the thought ,although premeditated , occurred that night?

 

[Bill Carson]

I have an awful question.
How big are an average 3 and 4 year old necks?
I noticed in the charging documents that strangulation and perhaps a weapon was used.
So, I am thinking a garrett and rope of some sort to make the weapon.
That would certainly take fore thought.
To create the weapon.
I think that may be why his defence attorneys specifically asked for DNA evidence from the girls necks.
Because he did not use his hands to strangle them, he used a garret that he made ahead of time.

Do we have the charging documents, or are you referring to the Warrantless Arrest Affidavit?

 

[borndem]

So I’ve been trying to imagine everything that could have been said (by both parties) in the “emotional conversation” to spark the explosion, so to speak.

So, considering he’s the murderer of everyone imo, what did SHE say to him to set him off, if he snapped and this wasn’t premeditated:

“I’m leaving you..”
-this might not bother him if he had a mistress

“I’m filing for divorce?”
-expensive

“I’m taking the kids?”
-If I can’t have them you cant either

bbm
That's the killer right there, IMO -- and I do mean it two ways.

How many times have we seen here when hubby is accused of or admitted an affair, etc., and wifey says, "I've already seen a divorce attorney and I want you out of here," etc. Hubby sees child support (in this case for two, then three), possible alimony, education costs, doctor bill costs, etc., etc., and they think that they don't wanna do that. Neither do they subscribe to the "it's cheaper to keep her" scenario, so they react, thinking they can get away with it, and boom! They don't. Usually, that is.
But I do think there was premeditation -- at least when it came down to the actual killing part. SMH.

 

[margarita25]

Delete

 

[MerryB]

Do you think the reason it didn’t occur to him was that the thought ,although premeditated , occurred that night?

I did not originally, but am thinking along these lines currently.