Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #30

[Thepoet]

Remember the Twinkie Defense? The Harvey Milk San Francisco City Hall murders? It worked.

How about "affluenza defense" in Ft Worth?

 

[Bill Carson]

So yeah, the whole deal is extremely unfair and disrespectful of SW's memory.

SBM.

I did want to add one thing, however, for clarification. I think it is unfair that we see so much of SW's life through her SM and none of CW's, but I do not think it is inappropriate for us and the public to look at SW's social media. We're curious. We want to find a reason this happened. We can only look at the information available to us. Plus, the dynamics of the relationship between all of the family members does tell us something, even if that is an incomplete and distorted picture.

But we have to be careful not to be too judgmental retroactively.

 

[MerryB]

I’ve never seen anything like it. So far, no one is willing to put their name out there to defend C.W. I don’t know what that means. I don’t know if CW’s father stayed in Colorado, or if he went back home. I imagine if he stayed in Colorado, he’d stay at CW’s house, hotels can get expensive, but you’d think some news organization would have filmed him coming and going, but so far, nothing. From what I’ve seen, I lean toward his father is horrified and wants nothing to do with him. But I don’t know. Maybe, the Defense has advised him to stay quiet and away.

I’m sure friends & family have been advised to stay quiet to protect the investigation. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Remember the Twinkie Defense? The Harvey Milk San Francisco City Hall murders? It worked.

That's why I feel that jury selection is crucial in cases like this.

The defense will try to get jurors who will be willing to agree with a ridiculous theory while the prosecution will attempt to exclude potential jurors who may agree with a "Twinkie" type of defense.

Hopefully we get a jury who is going to use common sense and look at the evidence and not unsubstantiated statements from the defense lawyers. JMO

 

[borndem]

I wonder if there’s a possibility Shannan didn’t know about the delinquent HOA fees and maybe Chris told her it was paid. Perhaps he had a lot of debt she didn’t know about (mistresses ain’t free) and he felt the walls were closing in on him. Just another motive to consider.

Hmmmm, good point, BR. Could be. He hid lotsa things from her, I believe. Yep, could be one more strand of the rope the prosecution is putting together against him. He probably has no idea at all what they're putting together. I'll bet he'll be gob-smacked if this goes to trial. SMH.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I find a number of amazing people here and intelligent discussion to be the norm. I've read compelling arguments on both sides. I've also been moved by the strong support for SW, as I too feel she and the children to be the victims. The arraignment in November is a ways off, and I'm sure more information will be forthcoming in the meantime, so I'd love to see more investigation and analysis here, because that is what this site and the members here do best!

Can a lawyer here have some input.

I thought the arraignment was waived.

And the next one was a status conference.

And if my understanding is correct, the arraignment may/would have given more information as to their charges versus just the arrest affidavit.( some folks refer to it as a mini-trial to get stuff on the table as to the evidence they have)

Am I correct in thinking that if they do that,( waive the arraignment) criminals do that so that more information does not get out into the public. And going straight to the status conference skips that part where a lot of stuff could have been public.

Also, since he waived his arraignment, does the 63 days start from when it was supposed to be, and not from the status conference in November which some media Outlets are saying?

There are three lawyers on this thread, and hopefully some of them will input to this question.

Thank you in advance for taking your time to answer the questions above.

 

[Deleted member 134862]

I think the particular circumstances of this case with respect to social media are unfair to SW. Here's what I mean--

1. SW posted lots and lots of 'public' information on SM. ('Public' meaning no privacy limits on who can see it.)

2. CW deleted his SM a week before the murders. I think that is extremely damning in that is indicative of premeditation in these acts. Now, the real evidence that we have not seen may prove to us this was just a poorly-timed coincidence, but that would be a miracle, IMO.

3. SW overshared on her SM. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. She posted a great deal of information--pictures, videos, updates--about her personal life and her family, including her children, and it is out there for the world to see. Yes, she did it to market and develop her business, and there's nothing wrong with that--that is a legitimate purpose, but most experts would recommend that personal information should be guarded better than that. Of course, her audience wasn't nearly as large before she was murdered, and she couldn't anticipate that.

4. SW's public SM was designed (IMO, again nothing wrong with this) to portray her family in a very positive light. Of course she did: she was selling products, for goodness sake! Plus, everybody on SM wants to create a positive image to some extent or another. (True, there are some people whose lives are a train wreck who overshare all their problems on SM trying to gain sympathy or whatever (I'm looking at one of my cousins in particular), but those are the minority.) And SW seemed to have a pretty good life--she lived in a big fine home, drove a fancy car, had a (seemingly) loving husband and two beautiful kids, appeared to be a good parent, always looked put together (makeup and nice clothes and whatnot), and had a really clean house.

5. Consequently, there is lots of SW's material for the public to pore over, judge, and second-guess, but there is nothing of CW's to pore over, judge, and second-guess.

6. And I think lots of people are envious of the things that SW seemed to have, and for whatever reason, they judge and are hateful. I can't explain this, other than human nature. It's awful, but people suck. (I AM NOT REFERRING TO ANYONE HERE ON WS.)

So yeah, the whole deal is extremely unfair and disrespectful of SW's memory.

I do want to add another reason for SW's overshare. Yes she had a business and it was an extension of that. What people fail to remember is she also had her family away from her most of the time. Social Media is great to help the family and extended family keep up with all the things their grandchildren/(fill in the blank) are doing. It is a way to keep them part of Bella and CeCe's lives when they could not be there every day to watch them grow up. She wanted her video snippets to also show her family that her babies and her were doing well and to make them feel part of their lives. MOO

 

[Thepoet]

I think the particular circumstances of this case with respect to social media are unfair to SW. Here's what I mean--

1. SW posted lots and lots of 'public' information on SM. ('Public' meaning no privacy limits on who can see it.)

2. CW deleted his SM a week before the murders. I think that is extremely damning in that is indicative of premeditation in these acts. Now, the real evidence that we have not seen may prove to us this was just a poorly-timed coincidence, but that would be a miracle, IMO.

3. SW overshared on her SM. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. She posted a great deal of information--pictures, videos, updates--about her personal life and her family, including her children, and it is out there for the world to see. Yes, she did it to market and develop her business, and there's nothing wrong with that--that is a legitimate purpose, but most experts would recommend that personal information should be guarded better than that. Of course, her audience wasn't nearly as large before she was murdered, and she couldn't anticipate that.

4. SW's public SM was designed (IMO, again nothing wrong with this) to portray her family in a very positive light. Of course she did: she was selling products, for goodness sake! Plus, everybody on SM wants to create a positive image to some extent or another. (True, there are some people whose lives are a train wreck who overshare all their problems on SM trying to gain sympathy or whatever (I'm looking at one of my cousins in particular), but those are the minority.) And SW seemed to have a pretty good life--she lived in a big fine home, drove a fancy car, had a (seemingly) loving husband and two beautiful kids, appeared to be a good parent, always looked put together (makeup and nice clothes and whatnot), and had a really clean house.

5. Consequently, there is lots of SW's material for the public to pore over, judge, and second-guess, but there is nothing of CW's to pore over, judge, and second-guess.

6. And I think lots of people are envious of the things that SW seemed to have, and for whatever reason, they judge and are hateful. I can't explain this, other than human nature. It's awful, but people suck. (I AM NOT REFERRING TO ANYONE HERE ON WS.)

So yeah, the whole deal is extremely unfair and disrespectful of SW's memory.

Very well said. Thanks. Well stated. You have to wonder what the video analysis would have been if CW had not made his ( hugely rediculous) accusation.

 

[Bill Carson]

Can a lawyer here have some input.

I thought the arraignment was waived.

And the next one was a status conference.

And if my understanding is correct, the arraignment may/would have given more information as to their charges versus just the arrest affidavit.( some folks refer to it as a mini-trial to get stuff on the table as to the evidence they have)

Am I correct in thinking that if they do that,( waive the arraignment) criminals do that so that more information does not get out into the public. And going straight to the status conference skips that part where a lot of stuff could have been public.

Also, since he waived his arraignment, does the 63 days start from when it was supposed to be, and not from the status conference in November which some media Outlets are saying?

There are three lawyers on this thread, and hopefully some of them will input to this question.

Thank you in advance for taking your time to answer the questions above.

He waived a preliminary hearing, which is a hearing where the prosecution has to put on some evidence to indicate that there is [CORRECTED:] PROBABLE CAUSE to believe CW has committed a crime in order to keep CW in jail and hold him over until the full trial.

They have not had the arraignment yet, from what I understand. Arraignment is typically where they read the official charges against the accused, and the accused enters his/her first plea of guilty or not guilty (almost always not guilty at that point).

So I don't think the "63 days" that the DA has to decide whether to pursue the DP has started to run.

I will defer to the others here. I practiced criminal defense (a little) in another state, but not Colorado, and Colorado law is pretty weird, IMO.

Edited to correct burden from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." Duh.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Clearly it's valid to discuss the theory that he's innocent. And I think an examination of who these people were and how they interacted with one another and the world is fair.

That being said, some of the stuff I've seen here and on the internet in general has been horrible and utterly baseless, IMO. And uncessarily victim- bashing.

It's hard to draw a line for sure. But I've been appalled. And felt motivated to defend this poor woman and her family and friends.

There's a way to have an intellectual debate about the possibility of his innocence without making ludicrous insinuations about her character based on out of context and cherry-picked social media posts.

Example? For me, there's a difference between, "You know, I've seen some things here in her SM that make me wonder: Are there any signs of X here? Let's find some info on X and see if anything fits."

And "Wow. Look at her closets. Yup, she's got BPD."

My two cents.

Respectfully speaking, not everyone here who wants to discuss all possibilities are saying awful, terrible things and victim bashing. Many members here haven't been looking at stuff from the internet in general or comments from SM so maybe that's where some of the confusion comes in.

I'm stuck on "what if" and I can't seem to get past "what if". I know the odds are stacked against CW and by his own admissions. But in all seriousness - what if? I've seen things play out much different before and I'm just not ready to say one or the other.

 

[Bill Carson]

I do want to add another reason for SW's overshare. Yes she had a business and it was an extension of that. What people fail to remember is she also had her family away from her most of the time. Social Media is great to help the family and extended family keep up with all the things their grandchildren/(fill in the blank) are doing. It is a way to keep them part of Bella and CeCe's lives when they could not be there every day to watch them grow up. She wanted her video snippets to also show her family that her babies and her were doing well and to make them feel part of their lives. MOO

Yes, BUT she could have shared all of that to "friends only" or even just specific friends without privacy being set to "public" for all the world to see. (By default, nearly all of my fb posts are to "friends only.")

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I completely understand your position, Tippy. You are not saying CW did it, or SW did it. Not yet. No one is able to persuade you one way or another. Not yet. You'd make an ideal juror for both sides in the courtroom.

Yes - you understand correctly. Ha - It's likely I would be in a padded room after the trial. I can't even imagine what that would do to a person. jmo

 

[Thepoet]

Thank you for expressing the facts so eloquently. Its dreadful to know that SW's character is being dissected and disrespected. Let's hope that this trial vindicates SW completely and shows who the true killer is.

I have a gut feeling that we'll never see a trial. Either he'll take his own life (he's weak) or he'll make a deal. The defense attorney's seem good and they must know the truth, or some of it, and should be honest with him.

 

[Deleted member 134862]

Yes, BUT she could have shared all of that to "friends only" or even just specific friends without privacy being set to "public" for all the world to see. (By default, nearly all of my fb posts are to "friends only.")

She could have, so point taken. I have noticed some people on my FB lists who just default it to the world. They don't care who see's anything they post. Maybe her keeping it open to all gives her an opening for people who are thinking about joining thrive to see her through her role as a mom and feel more connection there. So it served dual purpose.

 

[Layla123]

As a person who hasn’t watched these videos and followed the blow by blow moments of their lives, it makes me wonder why would someone ever do that. Maybe it’s because I am in my 50’s, and grew up in a time before social media and when people were humble and private.

I use Facebook, I’m over 50, and I love it! I have many FB friends, and I thoroughly enjoy seeing what they’re up to, it’s fun! I don’t view it as a way to judge my friends, I know I’m not perfect, it’s not about that. When I post a photo of something we’re doing, I post it because I’m having a good time, and I want to share it with my friends. My cover photo was taken from behind as my husband and I toasted one another with Gin & Tonics at a restaurant overlooking San Sebastián Bay, Spain. It was a wonderful moment, and I shared it with my friends. Doesn’t mean I’m pretending I have a perfect life. It means that moment in time was meaningful to me. My friends know I don’t live in San Sebastián, Spain, I’m not pretending to be anything.

 

[Jennifer17]

I have a gut feeling that we'll never see a trial. Either he'll take his own life (he's weak) or he'll make a deal. The defense attorney's seem good and they must know the truth, or some of it, and should be honest with him.

I don't get the feeling that he will suicide and I also don't think that he is man enough to own up to his actions.
He knows what he did and is now probably trying to justify his lie about SW killing the girls to protect his remaining family's honour.

 

[evrli]

FACT:
CW was having an ongoing affair at the time SW,BW,and CW passed.

Was CW Affair Person(AP) a MALE or FEMALE?
Did AP work for ANADARKO or THRIVE?

 

[dixiegirl1035]

He waived a preliminary hearing, which is a hearing where the prosecution has to put on some evidence to indicate that there is reasonable suspicion (not sure of the legal standard here) to keep CW in jail and hold him over until the full trial.

They have not had the arraignment yet, from what I understand. Arraignment is typically where they read the official charges against the accused, and the accused enters his/her first plea of guilty or not guilty (almost always not guilty at that point).

So I don't think the "63 days" that the DA has to decide whether to pursue the DP has started to run.

I will defer to the others here. I practiced criminal defense (a little) in another state, but not Colorado, and Colorado law is pretty weird, IMO.

Apologies, and thank you. I mixed up preliminary hearing and arraignment apparently.

Chris Watts waives preliminary hearing in court appearance, will be held without bond

"Watts and his attorney waived his right to a preliminary hearing within 35 days and asked for a status conference to be held instead. People charged with the highest-degree felonies are allowed preliminary hearings so prosecutors can show cause that the case should proceed in court. Watts' attorney and prosecutors agreed that an evidentiary and discovery hearing could be held in the case as well.

Prosecutors will have 63 days after Watts' arraignment to decide if they will seek the death penalty in the case. If they do not, Watts would face mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole if he is convicted on any of the murder charges."

Perhaps my confusion was seeing there was a status conference, and I have no idea when the arraignment is going to be. The media said it was on November 19th, but I thought that was a status conference. I guess that would be the arraignment?

 

[Bill Carson]

She could have, so point taken. I have noticed some people on my FB lists who just default it to the world. They don't care who see's anything they post. Maybe her keeping it open to all gives her an opening for people who are thinking about joining thrive to see her through her role as a mom and feel more connection there. So it served dual purpose.

BBM.

Yes, I agree. By making her fb posts "public," whenever any of her friends would comment on her posts, or 'like' her posts, then her friends' friends would see her posts, too, so by doing that it was a good way to extend her "reach," as they call it. Yeah, I feel certain you are right, that this was her intention.

 

[Thepoet]

Can a lawyer here have some input.

I thought the arraignment was waived.

And the next one was a status conference.

And if my understanding is correct, the arraignment may/would have given more information as to their charges versus just the arrest affidavit.( some folks refer to it as a mini-trial to get stuff on the table as to the evidence they have)

Am I correct in thinking that if they do that,( waive the arraignment) criminals do that so that more information does not get out into the public. And going straight to the status conference skips that part where a lot of stuff could have been public.

Also, since he waived his arraignment, does the 63 days start from when it was supposed to be, and not from the status conference in November which some media Outlets are saying?

There are three lawyers on this thread, and hopefully some of them will input to this question.

Thank you in advance for taking your time to answer the questions above.

Thanks for asking those questions. I meant scheduling. . . .blush!