Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #39

[WildWest]

But he knew she was supposed to have started the day before and he STUMBLES and stutters over it when he says it. “Bella was gonna start school, uh, like next, uh, next Monday. They were both getting ready to start back.” He did not confuse his child’s first day of kindergarten as happening next week. It just made things more complicated if that was clear to everyone, therefore the qualifying “they were both getting ready to start back” citing no specific day.

I’ve always been so hung up on the fact that he slipped and said WAS, indicating that she WAS never going to start because she was dead. And this AFTER he had dumped them both in crude oil being the reason for it. He totally knew what he was doing, he was just doing a piss poor job of it.

Idk if this is relevant but it might be. The public school near their house has a start date of Wed Aug 15th. I don't know if BW kindergarten was public, private, charter, or another accredited hybrid. This might tie into him saying register BW on Monday and start on Wed. MIGHT NOT. Doesn't matter, those 4 angels are gone.

 

[WildWest]

Yes I totally agree if Bella looked blue it was from after he killed her, not because he saw her on the monitor. I hate saying this but maybe when he went back in to get her body to take to the oil vat she looked blue to him at that point. I would hope that it haunts him everytime he remembers it.

I do wonder why he chose the baby monitor story. I don't believe it for a second but there's some reason he spoke about the baby monitor.

Agreed, seems like there is always a kernal of truth in his lies.

I had Summer baby monitor in 2011, it almost looked like a cell phone at a quick glance, I hope he's haunted everytime he sees a cell phone too.

 

[Deleted member 182072]

I have always thought instigating a discussion of separation at 4am was ridiculous, particularly when your wife has just come home from a long trip, (with delays) and you had to leave for work at 5:30 (if he actually did need to leave that early). Adding in the fact that you have a child starting her first day of school the next day, makes this even more ludicrous, unless you have absolutely no sense of decency or timing (even if you don't kill your wife too).

I think the fact that he likely killed his daughter on what would have been her first day of kindergarten is truly so sad and heinous that I don't like to dwell on it much. But the fact that he was wily enough to be misleading about this by indicating that it was supposed to occur "NEXT" week, makes him even more guilty in my eyes.

Again-I was always struck by the fact that he had said "WAS" going to start when she was presumably still missing...as if that were never going to happen. It seemed obvious that they were dead. But maybe he was about to say "Bella WAS going to start school on Monday" which would obviously have not indicated they were dead yet, but he was trying to distance himself from the horrible details of what he had perpetrated.

I also think that it's fair to say that SW would have been looking forward to this as being a momentous occasion as well, to immortalize with pictures and videos, and she would have certainly thought to check on her after she got home.

Thank you for bringing up that fact that Bella was going to start kindergarten that day. I think it would have raised more red flags immediately if she had started school and then just stopped rather than not starting at all, so that could help explain the timing of their murders.

The gender reveal party was also going to be that Saturday, so it could also have been a reason for the timing. Unlike baby showers, gender reveal parties are for both men and women to attend and SW would have certainly taken many videos of the event.

My theory is that CW told his AP that he had already started the process of separating from his wife and that the baby wasn't even his. Once the AP saw the gender reveal party videos with CW playing his role as happy husband and doting dad, the jig would have been up. MOO

 

[Mrspratcher]

The prosecution filed the motion - but it was supposed to be filed by the custodian of the document, which should be the coroner
However the judge either did not notice or did not see a big deal about that fact - so he issued orders that didn’t address whether the prosecution was the proper party to file and whether the criminal proceeding was the proper place to file

It appears the media is now raising both of those issues

I think an argument can be made that the prosecution is also a custodian:

(2) “Official custodian” means and includes any officer or employee of the state, of any agency, institution, or political subdivision of the state, of any institutionally related foundation, of any institutionally related health care foundation, of any institutionally related real estate foundation, or of any local government-financed entity, who is responsible for the maintenance, care, and keeping of public records, regardless of whether the records are in his or her actual personal custody and control.

This is definitely interesting.

 

[gitana1]

The prosecution filed the motion - but it was supposed to be filed by the custodian of the document, which should be the coroner
However the judge either did not notice or did not see a big deal about that fact - so he issued orders that didn’t address whether the prosecution was the proper party to file and whether the criminal proceeding was the proper place to file

It appears the media is now raising both of those issues

I don't know. IMO the code is clear that the state (prosecution) are also official custodians of autposy records:

(2) "Official custodian" means and includes any officer or employee of the state, of any agency, institution, or political subdivision of the state, of any institutionally related foundation, of any institutionally related health care foundation, of any institutionally related real estate foundation, or of any local government-financed entity, who is responsible for the maintenance, care, and keeping of public records, regardless of whether the records are in his or her actual personal custody and control.
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Public (Open) Records :: Article 72 - Public Records :: Part 2 - :: Inspection, Copying, or Photographing :: § 24-72-202. Definitions

I know what the media is arguing with regard to that but it seems clear that the court agrees that the prosecution is also an official custodian of the records, as decisively stated in its order.

And of course the question as to whether or not the report will remain sealed is going to be heard in the context of the criminal case. That's appropriate. Because the request to seal it is in the context of the criminal case.

I believe any hearing would likely be public as it involves the media, although contents of the report may not be made public during the hearing.

Although the new order doesn't mention a time line for a response from the state I still can't imagine that one of the two parties in the case isn't going to file a response.
I suppose they don't have to but I'm betting they have a position and want that considered.

I'm waiting to see any response from them.

I think it's highly likely we are going to be seeing that report pretty soon either way though.

 

[Amandaaa]

I think an argument can be made that the prosecution is also a custodian:

(2) “Official custodian” means and includes any officer or employee of the state, of any agency, institution, or political subdivision of the state, of any institutionally related foundation, of any institutionally related health care foundation, of any institutionally related real estate foundation, or of any local government-financed entity, who is responsible for the maintenance, care, and keeping of public records, regardless of whether the records are in his or her actual personal custody and control.

This is definitely interesting.

An argument can be made for practically anything...
One of the reasons I love this stuff

 

[gitana1]

I think an argument can be made that the prosecution is also a custodian:

(2) “Official custodian” means and includes any officer or employee of the state, of any agency, institution, or political subdivision of the state, of any institutionally related foundation, of any institutionally related health care foundation, of any institutionally related real estate foundation, or of any local government-financed entity, who is responsible for the maintenance, care, and keeping of public records, regardless of whether the records are in his or her actual personal custody and control.

This is definitely interesting.

Jinx!!

 

[gitana1]

An argument can be made for practically anything...
One of the reasons I love this stuff

Well the court listed them as the official custodian in its order. So it's more than a mere argument.

 

[tmar]

I’m quite surprised that MSM hasn’t named & done a story about this Andarko AP (from the affidavit) yet.

There is enough speculation and just enough facts floating around that you’d think it would have hit People, at least.

As the AP (coworker) was known to Police before CW's arrest, the AP, could have been wired, helping Police in phone conversations she had with CW.

 

[Mrspratcher]

Jinx!!

 

[drama_farmer]

So many things on this case make no sense- but then again, murder doesn't make sense either, so maybe it's just that a sane person can't understand an insane one.

I know it's random, but it doesn't seem that far fetched to me. He could have sent AP out the backdoor, through the construction site (a lot of people having affairs park a bit away and sneak in so not to be seen by neighbors), back to her car, and tried to clean up. And then, because he felt disloyal to SW, he put on the shirt she gave him, as a way to try to connect to her and make it up to her for killing her. And it would explain why he seemed so detached and calm- if he was trying to just hold it together for the sake of the AP and protecting her, and was in shock at how everything had gone down.

Snipped for space

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this!

I've been entertaining some of my own "fantasies" about a similar scenario. Even in my own opinion, it's beyond far-fetched to imagine his AP as an accomplice, but then again . . soooo many speculative narratives (including CW's account) strike me as fantastical.

I began playing the what if someone else was involved game after looking at the two crime scenes. IMO, it mrrored the "I'll take care of the bodies, while you get rid of the evidence" trope that I've seen in movies/on TV.

So, in my fantastical version of events, the accomplice (for whatever reason) does not keep their part of the bargain.
If CW believed the house was "taken care of" by someone else, it might explain why so many IMO incriminating items of evidence were left for everyone to find.

Just thinking out loud with my scrambled brain! MOO

 

[MassGuy]

Snipped for space

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this!

I've been entertaining some of my own "fantasies" about a similar scenario. Even in my own opinion, it's beyond far-fetched to imagine his AP as an accomplice, but then again . . soooo many speculative narratives (including CW's account) strike me as fantastical.

I began playing the what if someone else was involved game after looking at the two crime scenes. IMO, it mrrored the "I'll take care of the bodies, while you get rid of the evidence" trope that I've seen in movies/on TV.

So, in my fantastical version of events, the accomplice (for whatever reason) does not keep their part of the bargain.
If CW believed the house was "taken care of" by someone else, it might explain why so many IMO incriminating items of evidence were left for everyone to find.

Just thinking out loud with my scrambled brain! MOO

I think the scene at the house wasn’t not staged because of the failures of an accomplice, but because there was no accomplice.

Everything he did, makes far more sense to me, if he did it alone.

He simply believed he had more time, but he was terribly mistaken.

 

[gitana1]

Oh, I interpreted differently when it was said...

The prosecution is the “official custodian” as defined in C.R.S. 24-72-202(2). Coroner’s autopsy reports on homicide victims are public records subject to disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”)

..... so what you were saying is the court is incorrect and can be something the defense comes up against!

Interesting!

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/19th_Judicial_District/caseofinterest/2018CR2003/ORDER (C14).pdf

Yeah the court was clear. The court didn't fail to notice nor did it fail to address the issue. It clearly did address the issue as you noted and listed the prosecution as the custodian.

I guess the media is trying to argue that's wrong. I don't believe that argument is going to prevail. I don't think the court is going to say, "you're right! We were wrong. We are now going to toss the motion as the state is not the custodian and thus doesn't have standing!"

Of course they have standing to bring a motion.

The real hurdle the state has is the public interest in access to public records. As Amandaa has discussed, it doesn't seem the state argument for sealing has worked before. We can't really find info showing that.

And the court seems inclined in its first order to release the report barring some extreme circumstances.

 

[Jennifer17]

<modsnip - removed quoted post>

Didn't People magazine report on the same sex affair? Or am I not remembering correctly?

 

[MassGuy]

Didn't People magazine report on the same sex affair? Or am I not remembering correctly?

They reported that the AB caller, offered information that jibed with their own investigation, and that he had information that wasn’t readily available. They stopped short of outright confirming it though.

LE sources early on, leaked information that CW was engaged in affairs with both men and women.

 

[gitana1]

Didn't People magazine report on the same sex affair? Or am I not remembering correctly?

Yes!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/crime/chris-watts-gay-male-lover-interview/amp/

Bbl. Go to go back to work!

 

[Shekkiec]

If it was the Monday that they 'vanished' why would he use next Monday for a day that had already passed?

It's an ambitious phrase , if you are on a brick and say I am stepping on the next brick or the following brick some would interpret that as the same as well. It may be a regional thing, I am from the South , within my region it is common to use both IMO I don't see a high debate upon the phrasing myself but for those who may i am just giving you my opinion i am not arguing or trying to start a grammar debate moo

 

[Best of What's Around]

I've thought a lot about CW's claim that SW killed the girls and he flew into a rage. I've also thought about some of the posts supporting CW's version. I can't make it work, at all.

1. CW had the opportunity to push the panic button, probably more than once, he didn't.
2. CW had the opportunity to call 911, as he raced to the bedroom, he didn't.
3. He should have been yelling at the top of his lungs. He didn't.
4. The natural reaction, for someone in a rage, especially male, is to strike out. He didn't.
5. The natural response would have been to hit SW or push her aside and go to Cece's aid.
He didn't. (I believe he would have said so, if he did.)
6. He should have tried to revive Bella. He didn't (I believe he would have said so, if he did.)
7. At least Cece should have been able to be revived.
8. Rage cools and logic usually prevails. He had the opportunity to see things clearly and call
for help. He didn't.
9. Rage cools and logic usually prevails. He had the opportunity to think and realize that
any hope he had to be believed and for the truth to come out, was to preserve the (crime)
scene and call the police. He didn't.
10. Rage cools and logic usually prevails. He had the opportunity to think things out and
realize hiding bodies, for any reason, is perceived as the act of a guilty person. He didn't.
11. He could have hidden the bodies in a humane way. He didn't.
12. He had the opportunity to tell LE the truth when they met him at the house. He didn't.
13. After a day of processing all the events of the night before and meeting with NUA and LE
he should have been overcome with doubts, fear, and grief that night and his face and
demeaner should have mirrored it the next day. And yet, he next day he was well rested,
clean, and chipper.
14. He knew the truth; he knew they weren't missing and weren't coming back. He knew they
were all dead. He knew LE was involved, he knew the "ball" was rolling. He chose to lie and
to pose and to continue the charade, as a guilty person would do.

If even one or two of the above items were not true, I might, consider his story, consider only, but all of them are true and there can only be one conclusion; he lied and he killed all of them!

Yes, and I would add in the texting/calling of his dead wife BEFORE NAU showed up, per his media interviews. The reason I find this particularly important is because some (not me) could say he was scared and panicked - that is why he immediately hid the bodies and did not set the stage at home. Calling/texting your dead wife within a couple hours of this shows a pretty detailed plan being followed IMO. Cold and calculated with reason. Not just trying to do the bare minimum to CYA because you are in shock or panic or whatever they will try to argue on the defense. I find it chilling and telling that he did this so quickly and even BEFORE anyone had any reason to come knocking on the door like NAU. So very proactive IMO.

 

[Amandaaa]

Well the court listed them as the official custodian in its order. So it's more than a mere argument.

Not yet...IMO the court didn’t address this issue properly in the beginning - still interested to see how this plays out. That’s why I want to read the media’s motion...

 

[Jennifer17]

It's an ambitious phrase , if you are on a brick and say I am stepping on the next brick or the following brick some would interpret that as the same as well. It may be a regional thing, I am from the South , within my region it is common to use both IMO I don't see a high debate upon the phrasing myself but for those who may i am just giving you my opinion i am not arguing or trying to start a grammar debate moo

My point is that you are not likely to say next when the day has already come and gone.