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

[MassGuy]

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?

Exactly. If that evidence existed, there would not be a plea.

I doubt there will be a plea regardless, as I don’t think this guy is the type.

He was willing to kill in part, to protect his image. To plead guilty now, would be contrary to something that he appears to feel very strongly about.

 

[katydid23]

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

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken. The jury was given lesser charges to consider.

" aggravated manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse"


So the prosecution did not overcharge. The jury could have gone for aggravated child abuse. They didn't. Because they believed Baez's opening statement, where he made an unverified accusation of sexual abuse against the father.



Casey Anthony Trial Fast Facts - CNN - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/casey-anthony-trial-fast-facts/index.htm

 

[Best of What's Around]

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken. The jury was given lesser charges to consider.

" aggravated manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse"


So the prosecution did not overcharge. The jury could have gone for aggravated child abuse. They didn't. Because they believed Baez's opening statement, where he made an unverified accusation of sexual abuse against the father.



Casey Anthony Trial Fast Facts - CNN - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/casey-anthony-trial-fast-facts/index.htm

And didn't her parents pretty much let her get away with this? I did not follow the case but I thought I remembered that they did not smack down the accusation as much as they could have....in order to let her save herself.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

BBM. I agree and that's why he is charged accordingly. Doesn't matter whether the body was buried, thrown into a cornfield and covered with cornstalks, driven into a lake in the backseat of a car or dropped in oil tanks. They are all illegal for the same reason. JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

The fact of the matter is he desecrated their corpses. Calling it anything else is just splitting hairs.

 

[MassGuy]

BBM. I agree and that's why he is charged accordingly. Doesn't matter whether the body was buried, thrown into a cornfield and covered with cornstalks, driven into a lake in the backseat of a car or dropped in oil tanks. They are all illegal for the same reason. JMO

And they all have the same implication, that he didn’t care about his family, and was trying to get away with their murders.

 

[Best of What's Around]

BBM. I agree and that's why he is charged accordingly. Doesn't matter whether the body was buried, thrown into a cornfield and covered with cornstalks, driven into a lake in the backseat of a car or dropped in oil tanks. They are all illegal for the same reason. JMO

For that crime, yes. Though I believe in sentencing they take the specifics into account as to how appalling it is. But more importantly, these crimes also show consciousness of guilt, IMO, for murdering the children as well. A loving father who had nothing to do with the killing of his children would not feel comfortable dumping them in separate tanks of crude oil, IMO. But again, it is just one piece of many showing his actions consistent with being the sole murderer. Not calling 911, not being devastated, dumping them in crude oil, letting his parents languish in horror at the unknown of their grandchildren's whereabouts...just all pieces that fit that he murdered the children, not SW. IMO.

 

[margarita25]

Scary indeed! Atleast you were a willing participant.

I completely agree, she likely was killed first, or had no idea that her kids were already dead (in the less likely event they were killed first).

He wanted to achieve a goal, and her fighting back would have been an unnecessary difficulty.

Here are the numerical possibilities for the order of the murders ; (there is also the possibility one may have been injured first but died later. We just don’t know what happened in that house. It could be anything, imo).

1. S.B.C
2. S.C.B.
3. B.C.S
4. B.S.C.
5. C.B.S.
6. C.S.B.

I think that’s all of them?

So it seems x (the number of possibilities as to the potential order of the killings) equals 6, not factoring possibilities of one been injured first but succumbing to her death later).

(Notice in each of the 3 vertical rows each victim appears twice)

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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.

It's like we should ignore the facts and only concentrate on who killed the children even if the facts presented leads one to form an opinion about who killed the children, the one charged with the offenses.
Frustrating to say the least, but I admit there's good coming out of it because we keep re-posting the facts, the evidence so far, the theories, the research posters have so kindly spent time doing, the personal accounts of loss and grieving for family, friends and pets! This is worth something, keeping the discussion alive and civil.

 

[katydid23]

What they charged him with and what we are using, the common definition of desecration are not mutually exclusive IMO. They likely charged him with what best fit the intended purpose of the crime - to obstruct justice/tamper with evidence. Does not mean it was not offensive, disrespectful, et al = the definition of desecration.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think anyone here is saying CW desecrated the bodies for the fun of it. Yes, it was to conceal a crime and tamper with evidence. That doesn't mean it is something any loving parent looking to cover for themselves would do. It was heinous and shocking to most people. IMO.

And, it doesn't fit with his narrative of the outraged father, protecting his children. His story is that he was so enraged that his wife was assaulting them, that he lost all control. And rather than calling for help, he strangles his wife during the last precious moments of his girls' lives, thus killing his only son as well.

But he did so, because he loved his girls so much that he couldn't control his emotions.

But the way that he disposed of his daughter's does not fit that narrative at all. Nor does his demeanor and behavior the next morning. Nothing , in the aftermath, fits with his narrative, that he was just defending his beloved children.

 

[NuttMegg]

It's like we should ignore the facts and only concentrate on who killed the children even if the facts presented leads one to form an opinion about who killed the children, the one charged with the offenses.
Frustrating to say the least, but I admit there's good coming out of it because we keep re-posting the facts, the evidence so far, the theories, the research posters have so kindly spent time doing, the personal accounts of loss and grieving for family, friends and pets! This is worth something, keeping the discussion alive and civil.

If we don't keep posting tbe facts the ominous insinuations win.

 

[idfinch]

I'm catching up after several pages and time change brain fog.

Are we discussing the measure of how bad it was that CW disposed of his daughters the way he did?

So, he tossed his dead toddlers in the back of his truck and drove 40 minutes to cram them in separate oil tanks. And while it may be a bit thoughtless, it isn't desecration, because desecration would have been worse.

Why? Because the dictionary definition of desecration is incorrect, it's actually a religious term or act.

And following that belief, if he actually desecrated them, the charges would have been abuse of a corpse and/or desecration of venerated objects, not tampering with a deceased human body. Which really isn't that bad, despite carrying much of the same descriptions.

I know I'm wrong, here. Can someone please help me clarify? I know we aren't splitting hairs about how he disposed of his dead little girls and the level of how heinous that was (OR WASN'T) by interpretations of the definition and charges, and using that to hint at or debate his possible innocence in murdering them. Right?

 

[MyBelle]

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

I think a status hearing means just that and both sides and the judge discuss the case whether it be about a possible plea deals, discovery, etc. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

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

I read in a dictionary once that it's to one's advantage to learn Chinese before going to China. I don't disagree with the Dictionary -- it's a pretty good book.

 

[Johnny1181]

I think a status hearing means just that and both sides and the judge discuss the case whether it be about a possible plea deals, discovery, etc. JMO

I agree, it is important.

I think this status hearing request is a result of whatever the defense submitted last week under seal.

That seems to differ a bit from what you posted here.

 

[Best of What's Around]

I'm catching up after several pages and time change brain fog.

Are we discussing the measure of how bad it was that CW disposed of his daughters the way he did?

So, he tossed his dead toddlers in the back of his truck and drove 40 minutes to cram them in separate oil tanks. And while it may be a bit thoughtless, it isn't desecration, because desecration would have been worse.

Why? Because the dictionary definition of desecration is incorrect, it's actually a religious term or act.

And following that belief, if he actually desecrated them, the charges would have been abuse of a corpse and/or desecration of venerated objects, not tampering with a deceased human body. Which really isn't that bad, despite carrying much of the same descriptions.

I know I'm wrong, here. Can someone please help me clarify? I know we aren't splitting hairs about how he disposed of his dead little girls and the level of how heinous that was (OR WASN'T) by interpretations of the definition and charges, and using that to hint at or debate his possible innocence in murdering them. Right?

Well, when you put it that way....very well summarized, actually.

You are right. It was getting in the weeds for really no good reason. I am guilty of engaging. A waste, IMO.

 

[Johnny1181]

If we don't keep posting tbe facts the ominous insinuations win.

Exactly.
Edited to add: IMO some of these insinuations are for personal entertainment or an agenda and put forth despite being known they are unfounded.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I think a status hearing means just that and both sides and the judge discuss the case whether it be about a possible plea deals, discovery, etc. JMO

No PUBLIC status hearing discusses a possible plea that the state is willing to offer.

Those possible pleas are done behind closed doors between the DA and the defense. Jmo.

 

[katydid23]

BBM. I agree and that's why he is charged accordingly. Doesn't matter whether the body was buried, thrown into a cornfield and covered with cornstalks, driven into a lake in the backseat of a car or dropped in oil tanks. They are all illegal for the same reason. JMO

But it DOES matter. Because CW is wanting everyone to believe that he only killed his wife and son because he was so enraged at her assaulting his beloved babies.

But it is hard to believe that narrative, once we see how his demeanor and actions were, after the fact. He disrespected his babies, in the way he disposed of them, and he acted nonchalant and casual, after the traumatic events.

 

[katydid23]

I think a status hearing means just that and both sides and the judge discuss the case whether it be about a possible plea deals, discovery, etc. JMO

They are not going to discuss a plea deal, in public, during a status hearing.

They haven't even had the arraignment yet. Why would he cop a plea so fast?