Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #44

[MassGuy]

There are not just 'religious' connotations. They are human values, of respect for the dead. Not religious just basic common decency.

Exactly. Spirituality is different from religion.

Many people are not religious, but believe that people deserve a proper burial. It’s an idea that is ubiquitous throughout the western world.

Whether we chose cremation or burial, we show respect for our dead.

Stuffing bodies in oil tanks, or haphazardly burying them in a shallow grave, is not normal or acceptable.

Unless you’re a killer of course, then it’s par for the course.

 

[DexterMorgan]

They want people like Casey Anthony had on her jury. People who don't read the news and who cant 'connect the dots.' People who think 'reasonable doubt' means any sliver of a doubt.

Agree.

 

[Johnny1181]

The Prosecutor is who decided the charges not me.

And they sure piled on the appropriate charges. That preening, grinning, lying, cheating, murderer will never taste freedom again. jmo
Edited to add: I hope the prosecution doesn't agree to a plea bargain I expect the defense to end up begging for to avoid CW's name being dragged through his well earned and deserved mud. jmo

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The statute uses the exact words it means to use. The "same thing" is your opinion. Desecrate has religious connotations that I do not wish to debate.
CW is charged under Colorado statutes.

Duly noted, thanks.

If exact wording is the issue and of course, is very important in legal terms but could @GoneGoldfishin' replace desecrate/desecration with unlawfully and feloniously willfully destroyed, mutilated, concealed, removed, or altered a human body, part of a human body, or human remains with intent to impair its or their appearance or availability in the official proceedings; in violation of section 18 make their statement any less true or offensive? Is it offensive using the word desecrate?

 

[MassGuy]

Duly noted, thanks.

If exact wording is the issue and of course, is very important in legal terms but could @GoneGoldfishin' replace desecrate/desecration with unlawfully and feloniously willfully destroyed, mutilated, concealed, removed, or altered a human body, part of a human body, or human remains with intent to impair its or their appearance or availability in the official proceedings; in violation of section 18 make their statement any less true or offensive? Is it offensive using the word desecrate?

Using that word is no more offensive than what CW did to the bodies of his children.

 

[NuttMegg]

The Prosecutor is who decided the charges not me.

I don't understand your pov. Are you saying it's not any worse to throw a dead body in crude oil, or an outhouse pit, a pigpen, a vat of acid, even though the purpose is to hide evidence? That our mores and laws regarding the treatment of dead bodies are worthless,silly? I really don't understand your pov regarding giving cw a pass. And as I mentioned previously, I am not posting with a religious ideology.

 

[DexterMorgan]

IF this is a plea, I think it has to mean that the autopsy (which prosecution wants sealed) and most likely the investigation (texts, interviews, forensics) contain damaging information that the DA & SW’s family don’t want out, and CW’s version of events is in fact what happened. I can’t see any other reason they’d offer a plea deal at this point, if that’s what this is.

MOO

What Is a Status Hearing in a Criminal Case?

They don't need a court hearing to throw around plea deals. Wouldn't the prosecution just offer some numbers to the defense that the state is willing to accept behind closed doors?

And if it was accepted and the judge agreed. Then wouldn't they have mentioned an accepted plea agreement to the press by now just like in other cases where the defendant is expected to plea guilty to an offered plea deal?

So this status hearing is not a plea agreement hearing for the public. Jmo

 

[Best of What's Around]

Using that word is no more offensive than what CW did to the bodies of his children.

Right. And I think IF the original point of bringing up that was happened to the bodies was or was not desecration is to assert that people are seeing red over CW's dumping of the children in crude oil tanks and jumping to conclusions as a result, I think this is a short sighted argument. His tampering/hiding/dumping of the remains of his children is just ONE PIECE of a LONG LIST of behaviors and actions by CW that lead many to find abundant evidence of his guilt, IMO. I think focusing solely on one piece does an injustice of not seeing the forest through the trees. I believe the jury will say it was not JUST the interviews, the dumping, the lying about the affair, the leading the world on a wild goose chase, the failure to call 911, etc, etc, but the totality of that evidence. It is overwhelming, IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

I believe that shows like SVU, Criminal Minds, have created a mentality in people, that every single thing will be checked off, and tied up with a bow. They want to see video, concrete, conclusive evidence, proof and information. The ability to make a reasonable inference on details, and independent conclusions of evidence presented is beyond their grasp and conceptual cognition.

They felt that if they didn't have direct evidence, which I believe that there was plenty, that they could not convict. The issue of the death penalty was probably the problem there. Even though the sentencing phase was separate, I don't think that the jury felt that they could convict unless it was beyond reasonable doubt. At least Casey Anthony had a jury of her peers, only one person had a college degree. Several were unemployed.

CW's "Dream Jury", would be men who don't like untraditional women, older women, who have sons, single men.

The judge in the CA case has said he believed it wasn't premeditated murder. Blame that prosecutor for over-charging and failing to deliver the necessary evidence, not the jury.

If the Prosecutor in the Watts case fails to deliver evidence that matches the charges, that will be his fault. That's why I think there might be a plea deal in this case. JMO
Casey Anthony judge: She probably accidentally killed her daughter - CNN

 

[Johnny1181]

They don't need a court hearing to throw around plea deals. Wouldn't the prosecution just offer some numbers to the defense that the state is willing to accept behind closed doors?

And if it was accepted and the judge agreed. Then wouldn't they have mentioned an accepted plea agreement to the press by now just like in other cases where the defendant is expected to plea guilty to an offered plea deal?

So this status hearing is not a plea agreement hearing for the public. Jmo

Agreed. This hearing is just like it sounds. A status hearing. jmo

 

[Johnny1181]

The judge in the CA case has said he believed it wasn't premeditated murder. Blame that prosecutor for over-charging and failing to deliver the necessary evidence, not the jury.

If the Prosecutor in the Watts case fails to deliver evidence that matches the charges, that will be his fault. That's why I think there might be a plea deal in this case. JMO
Casey Anthony judge: She probably accidentally killed her daughter - CNN

Evidence will be delivered. This "man" has not been overcharged. The charges match the crimes he committed. jmo

 

[MassGuy]

Right. And I think IF the original point of bringing up that was happened to the bodies was or was not desecration is to assert that people are seeing red over CW's dumping of the children in crude oil tanks and jumping to conclusions as a result, I think this is a short sighted argument. His tampering/hiding/dumping of the remains of his children is just ONE PIECE of a LONG LIST of behaviors and actions by CW that lead many to find abundant evidence of his guilt, IMO. I think focusing solely on one piece does an injustice of not seeing the forest through the trees. I believe the jury will say it was not JUST the interviews, the dumping, the lying about the affair, the leading the world on a wild goose chase, the failure to call 911, etc, etc, but the totality of that evidence. It is overwhelming, IMO.

Exactly. It’s not so much the emotional aspect (disgust, shock, anger) of what he did, but what those actions actually mean in the grand scheme of things.

He was trying to conceal a crime. A crime for which he was completely, and totally, responsible.

 

[Best of What's Around]

The judge in the CA case has said he believed it wasn't premeditated murder. Blame that prosecutor for over-charging and failing to deliver the necessary evidence, not the jury.

If the Prosecutor in the Watts case fails to deliver evidence that matches the charges, that will be his fault. That's why I think there might be a plea deal in this case. JMO
Casey Anthony judge: She probably accidentally killed her daughter - CNN

If there were multiple options given to the jury, I would say that is on the jury. Sometimes juries make mistakes. Sometimes they later regret their votes. Not everyone who is found not guilty by a jury is innocent and vice versa. It could be the judge's decisions, it could be the prosecution, the defense, or even a runaway jury IMO. Key for me is finding a jury that has not been living under a rock because they already know too much about a high profile case. I think it is a real problem in high profile cases, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

I will never believe a mom who had been gone for days would fail to visually check her kids upon return. It's the first thing she would have done, IMO.

I always did so, without fail. When my grandma was dying, I'd fly up on some weekends to help my Mom. Every Sun night, upon return, My family would be sound asleep. But I ALWAYS snuck down the hall, and silently peeked in on the kids, before I went to sleep. It was like a compulsion, because I needed to see them safey sleeping before I hit they hay myself.

I think SW would feel the same way. She just wanted a quick peek. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Respectfully, not according to Webster's dictionary definition of the word desecration. There is no mention of anything religious associated with the word.

Respectfully, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[nwmouse]

It shocks me that they don't. Not one poster who doesn't find that behavior compelling has been able to cite one case or give one example of an innocent person behaving this way in such circumstances.

But posters have been able to show example after example of guilty murderers acting quite similarly. Over and over.

I truly believe that for some it is partially as a result of hatred toward Shanann, due to judging of her parenting, and/or anger and suspicion of her because she transcends traditional gender norms at times, or dislike of her for being publicly snarky to her introverted husband, or disgust with her cheery portrayal of her life and marriage and family as happy, or disgust with her MLM involvement and/0r the fevered whispering of those who are close to CW who appear to loathe SW and are spreading rumors about her character that confirm the biases that those who she rubbed the wrong way, developed.

What concerns me is that we actually already have a lot of evidence and logic supporting his guilt, IMO.

And yet some are nevertheless steadfast in believing there's reasonable doubt, even to the point of being convinced that a simple status conference scheduling change is going to result in the state giving up and accepting a plea that absolves this dude from guilt of killing his kids, because there's just got to be evidence so compelling to show what a villain and horrible person SW is, that even though none of it is likely remotely close to relevant to who killed the kids, well come on. A woman like that just MUST be a murderer.

I'm worried about who is going to end up on that jury.

BBM
Agree with this 100% and you stated it far more succinctly than I could.

 

[Best of What's Around]

Exactly. It’s not so much the emotional aspect (disgust, shock, anger) of what he did, but what those actions actually mean in the grand scheme of things.

He was trying to conceal a crime. A crime for which he was completely, and totally, responsible.

Yes, just one of many pieces to the puzzle that shows a man who is not the loving father and husband he claimed to be, IMO. Each piece appears so far to be consistent with his guilt, not innocence IMO. I have yet to see anything beyond speculation for which we do not have facts/evidence to suggest otherwise. If there is later, I am happy to add it to the puzzle...but so far it is a very compelling picture being formed IMO and I've yet to find a piece that does not fit the guilty picture revealed by the puzzle of this case.

 

[DexterMorgan]

If there were multiple options given to the jury, I would say that is on the jury. Sometimes juries make mistakes. Sometimes they later regret their votes. Not everyone who is found not guilty by a jury is innocent and vice versa. It could be the judge's decisions, it could be the prosecution, the defense, or even a runaway jury IMO. Key for me is finding a jury that has not been living under a rock because they already know too much about a high profile case. I think it is a real problem in high profile cases, IMO.

Agree. CASEYS dad mental breakdown in the motel room possibly had some jurors think he was involved with all mentioned. The accidental drowning scenario along with the other casey mentionings about dad.

Plus Caylees body wasn't found to much later and speculation was that a inside family member may have helped put the body where it was found.

So Casey and CW case are totally different besides the lying and smiling.

 

[katydid23]

If there is evidence from the autopsy reports that SW killed her children then her character absolutely will be dragged through the mud at a trial. I can also see the Prosecutor wanting avoid it.

I never met SW or CW so I don't know what went on when the camera wasn't filming. JMO

I am trying to think of what 'evidence' there could be that SW was the killer.

The only thing I can think of is DNA on their necks or under their little finger nails.


If they had Mom’s DNA under their fingernails, why would CW even consider pleading out?


Wouldn’t he want to go to trial and be publicly proven to be NOT GUILTY of killing the babies?

 

[bonjoviblonde]

I don't understand your pov. Are you saying it's not any worse to throw a dead body in crude oil, or an outhouse pit, a pigpen, a vat of acid, even though the purpose is to hide evidence? That our mores and laws regarding the treatment of dead bodies are worthless,silly? I really don't understand your pov regarding giving cw a pass. And as I mentioned previously, I am not posting with a religious ideology.

I don't understand it either. Would the OP be ok with someone throwing her loved ones body away like trash because "oh well, they are dead anyway"? Those were his children and he threw them away like trash in order to conceal they were dead (rather than ran off like he tried to make us believe) and to destroy evidence. The fact that this part of his crime is being looked at as basically not a big deal is pretty disturbing. IMO. It's one thing to be waiting for more evidence or thinking SW killed the kids but it's another to willfully ignore the things we KNOW he actually did.