Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #43

[Deleted member 182072]

DaisyK! How do you know that about the spousal support tax deduction!

It's wreaking havoc in some of my cases. Everything we used to try to determine long-term spousal support has now changed. So confusing.

I just followed all the changes that came with tax reform and thought that one was particularly cruel. Not sure how the courts and state govts will handle, but it will surely punish divorcing couples that much more by leaving them with less net income to divide.

It's especially scary when the extreme financial pressures from divorce lead to so much violence.

 

[PommyMommy]

We don’t know what they have so far, but I sure would like to know.

We know that whatever they have, it has not reduced his charges.
MOO

 

[PommyMommy]

During our "hiatus" I did a little searching on sealed pleadings with HIPAA information, and it made me wonder why they wouldn't just redact the HIPAA information. It seems that's the way it's handled many times.
Sorry, I can't find the source for this now, so just my opinion and wondering if any of the legal minds think it might turn out that way?

Welcome to Websleuths, Mazey11!
Thank you for joining us.​

 

[pocketaccent]

I just followed all the changes that came with tax reform and thought that one was particularly cruel. Not sure how the courts and state govts will handle, but it will surely punish divorcing couples that much more by leaving them with less net income to divide.

It's especially scary when the extreme financial pressures from divorce lead to so much violence.

Pre-2019 alimony arrangements are not affected by the new code.

Starting 2019,
-Alimony payers don't get tax deduction.
-Alimony recipients don't need to pay taxes.
So it's a wash.

In general, alimony payments will get smaller in amount. (but the net amount will be the same)

No need to murder your divorcing spouse.

 

[Seattle1]

That's kind of how the family friends described him. Super helpful. Looked you right in the eye. Super nice guy.

Yup. What is Macbeth -- Even the Devil was once an Angel...
MOO

 

[Deleted member 182072]

Pre-2019 alimony arrangements are not affected by the new code.

Starting 2019,
-Alimony payers don't get tax deduction.
-Alimony recipients don't need to pay taxes.
So it's a wash.

In general, alimony payments will get smaller in amount. (but the net amount will be the same)

No need to murder your divorcing spouse.

It's definitely not a wash when you consider it's the higher earner paying alimony under single tax rates (which are much higher than married rates) and folks with higher incomes are the ones paying most of the taxes.

In any case, I'm sure CW didn't take the tax changes into consideration when he decided to murder his family. JMO

 

[gitana1]

We will have to agree to disagree on that one

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).​

That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.

“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)​

2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.

“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.

“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)​

DURHAM
In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.
The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.
Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.
The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened​

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

 

[MassGuy]

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).


That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.


“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)


2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.


“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.


“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)”

DURHAM

In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.

The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.

Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.

The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.​

A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

Wow! Thanks. I think the lack of a bond request is a very big deal in light of the information you provided.

We’re nitpicking over the motions in regards to the autopsy release, meanwhile there is an elephant in the room in regards to the lack of this bond request.

Nothing exculpatory in those reports.

 

[MyBelle]

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).​

That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.

“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)​

2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.

“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.

“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)​

DURHAM
In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.
The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.
Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.
The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened​

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

Can the defense do that now even though the prosecution previously filed the motion to have the autopsy sealed and that issue has moved to civil court and another judge? This is very confusing.

 

[Backstroke10]

But is this carried for everyone, even if they're awaiting trial? Isnt CW in jail and not a state correctional facility? is there a difference?
ETA

In 95% of cases HIV can be detected 4 weeks after infection. If a negative result is given at 4 week, another test can be undertaken in 3 months.
How soon can I take an HIV test? | Guides | HIV i-Base

Great questions Nikynoo and I wish I had the answers. After reading a lot about it, it seems every state handles it differently. Some states have mandatory testing upon arrival and others don't. Some states test if they suspect the individual has any signs/symptoms or led a risky lifestyle (those weren't the exact words used). I know HIV positive inmates are of great concern from the jail level to the prison/state correctional level but I don't know about testing at the jail level. Sorry I don't have more to offer here but I will keep searching.

 

[Amandaaa]

For any who are interested, I took some time to show why I believe that if there was anything good for the defendant in the autopsy report, they'd be in court in a minute, asking for bond:

1. Capital cases (first degree murder) in Colorado are subject to no bond when proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great.

The Colorado Constitution provides that all defendants have the right to a bail bond, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is great: Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(1)(a) (“All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties pending disposition of charges except ․ [f]or capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption is great.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.

Article II, Bill of Rights (By the way, this is an appeal of an order setting bond conditions in another Colorado family annihilator case – that of Michael Blagg).​

That is a super high burden to meet. Vastly higher than probable cause.

“The mere fact that an information has been filed–or for that matter that the defendant has been bound over for trial—is not equivalent to a determination that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.” Orona v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 55, 58, 518 P.2d 839, 840 (1974)​

2. Any defendant, even those charged with first degree murder, may file a motion seeking bail. They must request it in writing and then a hearing has to take place.

“In any capital case, the defendant may make a written motion for admission to bail upon the ground that the proof is not evident or that presumption is not great, and the court shall promptly conduct a hearing upon such motion.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

3. At a bail hearing, if the state objects to bail, they have the burden of proof of showing that proof the crime has occurred as charged is evident or presumption that the defendant is guilty is great. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.


4. A defendant may request a hearing to change the terms of the bond, or to request bond, when there has been a change of circumstances in the case.

“After setting a new bond hearing, but before that hearing occurred, the court reinstated the $500,000 cash or surety bond it had set before Blagg's first trial.   Because the trial court dispensed with the hearing, neither party had the chance to argue changed circumstances and the alleged victim's family did not have the opportunity to be heard.” FindLaw's Supreme Court of Colorado case and opinions.​

5. Although rare, judges may reverse the no bond decision, and grant bond and release defendants charged with first degree murder, pending trial, when evidence emerges showing the case is weak.

(These are examples from North Carolina. As it is rare to find such cases, I went outside the state of Colorado. There is zero, however, to suggest, that this would not occur in Colorado if a case was suddenly proved weak due to exculpatory evidence.)​

DURHAM
In two weeks, five people charged with murder in Durham signed paperwork and walked out of the Durham County jail.
The five men had spent from 144 to 936 days within the white-brick detention center downtown. They remain charged with killing five men ages 22 to 42.
Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson unsecured the men’s bonds after hearings in January outlining evidence in what he called weak cases. An unsecured bond requires a signature promising to pay an amount of money if the defendant fails to return to court.
The attorney for one of the men said surveillance video proves her client has an alibi. Another said his client was defending himself against a man trying to rob him. Other cases had evidence or eyewitness testimony that raised concerns.A judge let 5 men charged with murder out of jail. Here’s what happened​

In this case, I believe that of there was one damn thing that was exculpatory in those autopsy results, the defense would be jumping to request bond. And I believe that's so even if they didn't think they would get it, because it would be a quick way to get facts they feel are "good" for the defendant, released to the public, via a bond motion.

And again, we will have to agree to disagree.

There is a rather large difference between something being “exculpatory” vs something that is simply good for the defense.

ETA: it’s perfectly okay that we have different opinions on this, you know... in fact, that’s what keeps it interesting

 

[pocketaccent]

It's definitely not a wash when you consider it's the higher earner paying alimony under single tax rates (which are much higher than married rates) and folks with higher incomes are the ones paying most of the taxes.

In any case, I'm sure CW didn't take the tax changes into consideration when he decided to murder his family. JMO

Yes, I agree, CW most likely wasn't aware of the new tax code. He just wanted to keep all money and property to himself. No wife, no kids, free at last.

(I want to avoid highly off-topic conversation to explain why it is a wash, in most cases anyway. There are strategies involved too.)

 

[gitana1]

During our "hiatus" I did a little searching on sealed pleadings with HIPAA information, and it made me wonder why they wouldn't just redact the HIPAA information. It seems that's the way it's handled many times.
Sorry, I can't find the source for this now, so just my opinion and wondering if any of the legal minds think it might turn out that way?

They can but it seems the motion itself might give away information they don't want out, unless it is sealed.

 

[gitana1]

And again, we will have to agree to disagree.

There is a rather large difference between something being “exculpatory” vs something that is simply good for the defense.

Anything good for the defense would be that which helps exonerate him. As you know, exculpatory doesn't necessarily mean that it absolutely proves a person did not commit the crime in question. It can simply be favorable evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant.

What example can you give of something in the report you think could exist that would not result in the defense trying their best to show that the state's case is weak, or trying their best to get such info to the public, as soon as possible?

 

[MyBelle]

And again, we will have to agree to disagree.

There is a rather large difference between something being “exculpatory” vs something that is simply good for the defense.

True. I think for CW's own safety, his defense team wants to keep him locked up. Cases involving children stir a lot of public anger. JMO

 

[Amandaaa]

Anything good for the defense would be that which helps exonerate him. As you know, exculpatory doesn't necessarily mean that it absolutely proves a person did not commit the crime in question. It can simply be favorable evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant.

What example can you give of something in the report you think could exist that would not result in the defense trying their best to show that the state's case is weak, or trying their best to get such info to the public, as soon as possible?

I am fully aware of the definition. I never suggested it was anything major in any way, or anything that would change the bail situation. It’s just my opinion - based on MY knowledge and experience - and you have yours. Not a big deal at all.

 

[MassGuy]

True. I think for CW's own safety, his defense team wants to keep him locked up. Cases involving children stir a lot of public anger. JMO

They can want to keep him locked up all they want, it all depends on what the defendant wants.

And I highly doubt CW wants to spend two years in jail awaiting trial. No one wants that.

 

[tmar]

Oh my goodness thank you for opening this thread again! I’ve been missing perspectives and analysis of what’s going on from you all.

Welcome izzies.
Your first post here.
Yes, we're all pleased the Thread is back on.

 

[Amandaaa]

True. I think for CW's own safety, his defense team wants to keep him locked up. Cases involving children stir a lot of public anger. JMO

Honestly - I am not at all sure I would want to be out if I was in his shoes. Unforunately, I think he’s safest where he is.

 

[gitana1]

I am fully aware of the definition. I never suggested it was anything major in any way, or anything that would change the bail situation. It’s just my opinion - based on MY knowledge and experience - and you have yours. Not a big deal at all.

Of course. I'm not meaning to offend you. I know you're aware of the definition. Which is why I wrote "as you know".

Could you give an example of something you think could be good for the defense, in the autopsy report, but that would not tend to exonerate him? Anything. Anything at all.

Further, if the defense fails to bring a motion for admission to bail, I trust you would logically conclude that there is zero in the autopsy report that would change the great presumption of guilt in this case or the evident proof of guilt?

Because obviously if there was any such thing, the defense would be hot footing it to a bond hearing.