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

[gitana1]

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?

Oh I think people are inferring that the state is going to offer him a deal like third degree felony murder for Shanann and tampering with the girls' bodies and that's it. They seem to think that there is such compelling evidence that the state is going to capitulate.

Similar to how they were conjecturing a couple weeks ago that Shanann's family had been summoned to town after the autopsy came in so that they could be gently let down and quietly told that indeed, Shannan was the culprit.

Not within the realm of reality or reason to me but to each is own.

 

[NuttMegg]

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?

In short, only those on a religious high horse would be bothered by cw's treatment of his family's bodies. Poor poor pitiful him.

 

[human]

I can't imagine anyone turning on the light, so they can see their child's face, and vice versa, while strangling them.

I would think he'd want them to be asleep when he began, and not have to see each other.

How did he know they were blue?

 

[margarita25]

Bringing forward the latest msm, sorry for reposts just trying to keep up here
(Note to check media thread):

11.4.18
Shanann Watts’ family could secure estate with slayer statute, or civil lawsuit if no conviction

“Shanann Watts’ family could secure estate with slayer statute, or civil lawsuit if no conviction
If Christopher Watts is found not guilty, it’s “extremely likely” Shanann Watts’ family would file a civil lawsuit alleging he is responsible for her wrongful death.“

—-
11.2.18
Hearing for Chris Watts scheduled for next week

“Chris Watts will have a status hearing Tuesday.“
—-
11.2.18
Hearing For Chris Watts, Man Accused Of Murdering Wife, Children, Moved Up

“A spokesperson for the Weld County District Attorney’s Office said Watts would appear on Election Day, Nov. 6, instead of the previously scheduled Nov. 19 court date.“

 

[Johnny1181]

How did he know they were blue?

Perhaps because he strangled them and their faces were inches from his while his hands were wrapped around their throats squeezing the life out of them. jmo

 

[DexterMorgan]

How did he know they were blue?

Due to their complexions it was either blue or purple after strangulation.

But since he is male with glasses. He said blue. Idk.

 

[gitana1]

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?

Well I think people are believing or suspecting that a plea deal has been already reached and will be revealed at the hearing.

They likely feel he AND THE STATE would cop a plea so fast but only to some reduced charge for Shanann. Not to a charge of homicide for the girls. Because of the "evidence" that most of us aren't aware of.

I think it speaks to the level of belief as to stuff swirling around out there about SW's character and medical history. People appear downright convinced that she was a deranged, abusive, personality disordered, malingering, criminal lunatic, and thus she clearly murdered the girls and caused poor, sweet Chris to temporarily lose his mind (and then apparently gain it back a second or two later) and kill her in a rage of despair. Because he had been so abused and led around by the nose by that creepy, attention-seeking harpy who caused him nothing but misery.

Something like that.

I'm seeing a real committment to that narrative. So much so that I think some people are certain this case is going to conclude in a head-spinning and astounding manner for those of us not "in the know", CW will be partially vindicated and we will all realize that SW was indeed the villain of this tragic case.

 

[gitana1]

he didn't because they weren't.

I think they were. And based on the circumstances I think the only way he knew that is if he saw it as he killed them or if he saw their bodies some time after death.

 

[Jax49]

Well I think people are believing or suspecting that a plea deal has been already reached and will be revealed at the hearing.

They likely feel he AND THE STATE would cop a plea so fast but only to some reduced charge for Shanann. Not to a charge of homicide for the girls. Because of the "evidence" that most of us aren't aware of.

I think it speaks to the level of belief as to stuff swirling around out there about SW's character and medical history. People appear downright convinced that she was a deranged, abusive, personality disordered, malingering, criminal lunatic, and thus she clearly murdered the girls and caused poor, sweet Chris to temporarily lose his mind (and then apparently gain it back a second or two later) and kill her on a rage of despair. Because he had been so abused and led around by the nose by that creepy, attention-seeking harpy who caused him nothing but misery.

Something like that.

I'm seeing a real committment to that narrative. So much so that I think some people are certain this case is going to conclude in a head-spinning and astounding manner for those of us not "in the know", CW will be partially vindicated and we will all realize that SW was indeed the villain of this tragic case.

bbm

Ridiculous, isn't it? IMHO, it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

 

[nwmouse]

I'm seeing a real committment to that narrative. So much so that I think some people are certain this case is going to conclude in a head-spinning and astounding manner for those of us not "in the know", CW will be partially vindicated and we will all realize that SW was indeed the villain of this tragic case.

BBM: If CW is vindicated in any way, even partially, it will be a very sad day for justice for victims in this country.

 

[NuttMegg]

I think they were. And based on the circumstances I think the only way he knew that is if he saw it as he killed them or if he saw their bodies some time after death.

i deleted that because i meant to say he didn't see them (her) blue on the monitor

 

[MyBelle]

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.

The plea deal is done behind closed doors but the Judge has to agree to it and also ask CW if he agrees to accept it. All that is done in a public hearing.

I do think it is something important because the DA sent out a news release to the media stating CW was expected to attend. And, the DA refused to say if the Nov. 19 was going to remain on the docket.

Christopher Watts expected to appear in court on Tuesday

 

[gitana1]

i deleted that because i meant to say he didn't see them (her) blue on the monitor

Oops! Got it!

 

[NuttMegg]

Oops! Got it!

Sorry i tend to type in code once I'm on the kindle.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The plea deal is done behind closed doors but the Judge has to agree to it and also ask CW if he agrees to accept it. All that is done in a public hearing.

I do think it is something important because the DA sent out a news release to the media stating CW was expected to attend. And, the DA refused to say if the Nov. 19 was going to remain on the docket.

Christopher Watts expected to appear in court on Tuesday

Suge Knight just took a plea deal. And it didn't happen during a public status hearing.

It happens behind closed doors and its all announced publicly after all paperwork is basically singed but before the actual mentioning.

So once a defendant accepts a plea deal. The next court hearing is Not called a Status hearing. Come on.

 

[Johnny1181]

The plea deal is done behind closed doors but the Judge has to agree to it and also ask CW if he agrees to accept it. All that is done in a public hearing.

I do think it is something important because the DA sent out a news release to the media stating CW was expected to attend. And, the DA refused to say if the Nov. 19 was going to remain on the docket.

Christopher Watts expected to appear in court on Tuesday

Where does it say the DA "refused to say if the Nov. 19 was going to remain on the docket."?

I read:

"Another status conference set for Nov. 19 remained on the docket on Friday afternoon, and DA spokeswoman Krista Henery in an email stated that her office would know more on Tuesday about whether the later hearing would remain on the docket."

 

[molly1255]

No, it isn't the same thing. CW isn't charged with desecration nor abuse of a corpse which are covered under other statutes.
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 18 - :: Criminal Code :: Article 9 - :: Offenses Against Public Peace, Order, and Decency :: Part 1 - :: Public Peace and Order :: § 18-9-113. Desecration of venerated objects

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 18 - :: Criminal Code :: Article 13 - :: Miscellaneous Offenses :: § 18-13-101. Abuse of a corpse

I'm not finding "Desecration of a corpse" in the Colorado Criminal Code. But I do think the definition of "desecrate" applies to what CW did to the bodies of his pregnant wife and little girls.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "desecrate" as
"to damage or show a lack of respect toward something holy or respected".

Many people believe the deceased body of a human being should be treated with respect. I think it is safe to say the majority of people find the way CW treated the bodies of his murdered pregnant wife and his murdered toddler daughters to be the opposite of respect. As for myself, I go beyond that. I think what he did with their bodies is depraved.

I'm not an attorney, but I think 18-13-101- Abuse of a corpse might also apply to what CW did to the bodies of his pregnant wife and his little girls, though he has not been charged with this:

(b) Treats the body or remains of any person in a way that would outrage normal family sensibilities.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM: If CW is vindicated in any way, even partially, it will be a very sad day for justice for victims in this country.

We'll agree to disagree. I believe a sad day for justice is when innocent people are convicted for crimes they didn't commit. JMO

 

[Johnny1181]

The plea deal is done behind closed doors but the Judge has to agree to it and also ask CW if he agrees to accept it. All that is done in a public hearing.

I do think it is something important because the DA sent out a news release to the media stating CW was expected to attend. And, the DA refused to say if the Nov. 19 was going to remain on the docket.

Christopher Watts expected to appear in court on Tuesday

I'm glad I take the time to read and research things in general rather than trust and believe what others tell me because the DA refused nothing of the sort in this release. It's simply not accurate.

"Another status conference set for Nov. 19 remained on the docket on Friday afternoon, and DA spokeswoman Krista Henery in an email stated that her office would know more on Tuesday about whether the later hearing would remain on the docket."

 

[Thepoet]

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.

CW was charged with 5 counts of first degree murder. FIVE. The prosecution had enough evidence to bring those charges. Against CW and CW alone. The other charges are serious, but superfluous. The charges will be presented, to the jury, with evidence, and the jury will decide on what was done and if it should be punished. They will probably think it was desecration. MOO.