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

[MsBetsy]

Okay, now I really really DO want you to answer.

I thought someone said it was due to the age upon entering kindergarten? One school's deadline was later than the others? Or was that just someone's opinion?

 

[mtnlites]

I thought someone said it was due to the age upon entering kindergarten? One school's deadline was later than the others? Or was that just someone's opinion?

I do remember reading that sometime today but it sounded like, per the VI's reply, there was another reason for the change.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, I can confirm that those discussions are not allowed. Again, we will need evidence presented by the prosecution or the defense to support that speculation and we don't have evidence at this time.

Thank you for confirming alleging SW had Munchausen by Proxy and/or suggesting CW wasn’t Nico’s father are not ok to discuss here.

 

[Allabouttrial]

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?

There's a saying attorneys use a lot in court "That bell can't be un-rung" MOO

 

[WildWest]

I thought someone said it was due to the age upon entering kindergarten? One school's deadline was later than the others? Or was that just someone's opinion?

Hi, I was wondering too.

 

[liltexans]

Hey everyone,

Do not discuss other posters on the thread, even in thinly veiled references. It's a TOS violation to do so. And stop referencing FB pages or SW-bashing sites or wherever else people are reading. That's also a TOS violation and just makes more work for the moderators who have to remove such posts.

If you want to complain about other posters, I highly suggest doing so via private message and not mentioning any of it here on the thread. This thread must remain about Shan'ann and her children and not about any WS or FB posters.

 

[borndem]

He would have to in order to get in some of this nonsense. Remember the Jodi arias trial? She had to testify to her disgusting allegations about him being a pedophile.

Here, any nonsense about her being abusive by taking the kids to the doctor "too much" or whatever, would have to come from him. Or the kids' doctors.

For example, you can't have his family get up and say, "She took the kids to the doctor a lot. My brother felt that was excessive and was worried." Nope. That's hearsay. He would have to testify to that.

But if he did, the doctors, for example, would then be subpoenaed and I don't think there's a shred of evidence they would say anything to indicate she was abusing the kids or lying about their illnesses. That would probably backfire spectacularly for the defense.

And of course, the court has to find that any allegations are relevant to a defense.

Yep, opening/closing statements, (which we know, and the jury will be told, cannot be considered evidence) can say/imply just so much. CW is the only one who can say what "really happened" that night -- he's the only living witness. But I think a good prosecutor could mop the floor with him. That's gonna be a real tough call for the defense. Or maybe not so tough...

 

[Johnny1181]

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?

Respectfully, would you want someone on a jury judging your guilt or innocence to have the opinion that you were guilty before your trial even started?
Would you trust them to instantly be able to change their thinking and throw out their preconceived notions?

I would not want a biased juror. And a person on a jury who has already made up their mind prior to hearing all of the evidence is biased imo.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

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.

But if the person becomes biased BEFORE they are interviewed for the jury, they may never become a juror.

If they hear about the autopsy results during the trial, that is fine and as it should be.

 

[Johnny1181]

But if the person becomes biased BEFORE they are interviewed for the jury, they may never become a juror.

If they hear about the autopsy results during the trial, that is fine and as it should be.

Exactly! Well said.
As has been explained several times by our Verified Attorneys this bias then eliminates that person from the jury pool and and makes the pool for potential jurors smaller.

 

[WildWest]

Something strange happened to this post...

and @Tigerlily75 , I had cyber gremlins the other day, one post I wrote quoted another member I did not intend to, I figured it was my butter fingers. Then a bit later similar happened again. I think the boards just get really full and really busy sometimes?, and in my case, I have slower internet than many which might have contributed. No idea what it is I just wanted to let you know it's not only you.

 

[gitana1]

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?

Some people are indeed incapable of letting go of preconceived notions. Even in the face of logical evidence. They will find any excuse they can to get around subsequently released evidence. And I have heard that some have just said things like, "I don't care what the evidence says. He looks like a nice man so I don't believe he's guilty."

But the thing is if the prosecution and defense are sure of the evidence, they know they won't want someone or get someone who knows about that evidence and has concluded CW is guilty. Even if they say they can set aside their opinion and look at everything anew.

Because unless there is something powerfully exculpatory the defense will believe that such a juror can't be swayed by things like social media videos. And if they ask that such a juror be excused for cause, they will likely prevail.

And the prosecution won't want to be left with the type of jurors who either don't read the news much and/or have heard about the evidence and think SW could've done it.

 

[mickey2942]

Respectfully, would you want someone on a jury judging your guilt or innocence to have the opinion that you were guilty before your trial even started?
Would you trust them to instantly be able to change their thinking and throw out their preconceived notions?

I would not want a biased juror. And a person on a jury who has already made up their mind prior to hearing all of the evidence is biased imo.

MOO

So, my brother would be pretty perfect for CW, he hasn't heard about this situation, he doesn't like small children much, or women who work outside the home, and wear a lot of makeup. He is blue collar, "Archie Bunker" type. Quiet, hangs with his dog, has a truck. Lives in Wyoming, worked in oil fields most of his career.

He would truly want to find reasons to believe CW.

 

[DexterMorgan]

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?

The report wouldn't tell you who caused what.

It will just tell you the injuries sustained. Jmo.

 

[nwmouse]

I am not sure how much her 'potential psychological issues' will be analyzed in court. The state will not bring that up in their main case. And when the defense offers their case, the judge will have to agree that those videos will be allowed, and for what purpose. They will have to explain to the judge that SW forced her child to sit on Santa's lap, and that it showed cruelty and harshness towards her child. I don't think the judge is going to buy that, JMO/

Same problem with the pie in the face video and the water pistols. I think these will backfire anyway because it will just show the jury a fun side of the family life, the happiness the girls had, their enthusiasm, and the way Mom was engaged in trying to create family holidays and events.

The judge is not going to discuss 'psychological issues' of SW unless there are diagnosed mental health issues for the jury to discuss. The defense is not going to be able to say she was a liar and a hypochondriac unless they can show the judge medical records saying she did not have any illnesses and the girls did not have any illnesses. And I do not believe that is going to happen. JMO MOO IMO

I just wanted to add that if I were a juror and the subject of SW taking her toddlers to the doctor regularly was brought up at trial in some negative twist, I would see her actions as a GOOD thing, as I have seen too much child neglect in my life. I was a pro-active mom and I took the kids to the doctor regularly when they were little because of fevers, tonsillitis etc. Good mommies are vigilant and would rather be safe than sorry when a little child gets sick.

 

[Layla123]

Respectfully, would you want someone on a jury judging your guilt or innocence to have the opinion that you were guilty before your trial even started?
Would you trust them to instantly be able to change their thinking and throw out their preconceived notions?

I would not want a biased juror. And a person on a jury who has already made up their mind prior to hearing all of the evidence is biased imo.

MOO

I think if you take your two dead daughters and dump them in oil tanks, then bury your wife nearby, then go on the news begging everybody to help find them, then lie to the police about having an affair, and then it comes out that you are a big fat liar, you should get yourself psyched out for your high profile trial that will be plastered all over the news, and everybody is going to hear about it. I also think any potential juror who walks into court, who says they don’t know a thing about the case is probably lying.

 

[Alethea]

That’s what I want to know! If I form an opinion before the trial begins, I know I would have to throw out what I thought I knew once I became a juror. So, for example, if it turns out that the strangulation marks on the children’s knecks were so tiny that they couldn’t possibly have been made by CW’s large hands, I would first gasp, and then I would tell myself, I guess I was wrong, and then I would instantly change my thinking. Are you saying that not all people are capable of letting go of their preconceived opinions? Or is that something the attorneys trying the case fear? Has it ever been proven to be true?

This comes up often with defendants accused of multiple crimes or with recent criminal history that is not linked to the facts charged. Prior criminal acts or charges are usually inadmissible except when they meet certain exceptions. The reasoning is the jurors are supposed to determine did this defendant commit this act. Not another crime, but this crime.

After a trial jurors will find out about other crimes committed by the defendant and they often report that they are upset that they didn't know about it during their trial because now they feel like they let a "murderer" go. But that was the point. The jurors were supposed to convict or acquit the defendant on the facts presented by the prosecution in this case. Not based on whether the defendant is the "murdering type" or committed other crimes.

In the Jessica Chambers retrial going on right now in Mississippi the defendant has also been charged with murder in another state and will face another trial for that crime after this one is over. That fact was not admissible and the jurors in the Jessica Chambers trial will not know that this defendant is also accused of the murder of another young woman. We can argue, and the prosecution and defense always do, if that is fair or appropriate, but the rules of evidence are the rules of evidence.

 

[Colorado303]

It will be nice when we get toxically to rule out any attempt to OD herself with pills

Yes! As well as ruling out that she tried to gouge her eyes out with bobby pins or burn off her own hair.

 

[Johnny1181]

I think if you take your two dead daughters and dump them in oil tanks, then bury your wife nearby, then go on the news begging everybody to help find them, then lie to the police about having an affair, and then it comes out that you are a big fat liar, you should get yourself psyched out for your high profile trial that will be plastered all over the news, and everybody is going to hear about it. I also think any potential juror who walks into court, who says they don’t know a thing about the case is probably lying.

I think that in your original post that I responded to you discussed having an actual opinion prior to trial, not a scenario where someone simply knows about the case. That's what I was responding to.

 

[mickey2942]

I think if you take your two dead daughters and dump them in oil tanks, then bury your wife nearby, then go on the news begging everybody to help find them, then lie to the police about having an affair, and then it comes out that you are a big fat liar, you should get yourself psyched out for your high profile trial that will be plastered all over the news, and everybody is going to hear about it. I also think any potential juror who walks into court, who says they don’t know a thing about the case is probably lying.

You would be surprised how many people I know, who don't have smartphones, internet, or pay for cable. They pay for Football ticket NFL, read the sports page, once in awhile. There are alot of folks like that.

They don't watch the news, have isolated jobs, just work, watch football, hang out. Zero interest in news.

 

[Johnny1181]

Yes! As well as ruling out that she tried to gouge her eyes out with bobby pins or burn off her own hair.

You rock!