Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *CW GUILTY* #45

[Amonet]

Most people seem to have a poor understanding of rigor mortis. CW killed SW some time between 2:00 and, say, 4:00 or thereabouts. Her body was placed in his truck before 5:15.

Knight’s Forensic pathology:

The flaccid period immediately after death is variable, but commonly extends to between 3 and 6 hours before stiffening is first detected, depending on environmental temperature and other factors. Rigor is first apparent in the smaller muscle groups, not because it begins there, but because the smaller joints, such as the jaw, are more easily immobilized. The sequence of spread of rigor is also variable but tends to affect the jaw, facial muscles and neck before being obvious in the wrists and ankles, then the knees, elbows and hips.


In other words, her body was still flaccid when he put her in the truck and only then would rigor start and it would be in the smaller muscle groups.

I've also read that small children can be less affected by rigor.

 

[MCDRAW]

The only thing I can think of is it is something that might - a tiny bit- support his confession .

or there isn't any evidence pointing either way.

 

[MCDRAW]

To go where I am ( not fully!) you have to go to oh my god I just killed my wife and my kids are dead.

Not thinking well. So everything went nuts.

It takes a long time to strangle someone. I'm pretty sure he had time to think. If he didn't kill his girls, there was no reason not to seek help for them. IMO

 

[JudgeJudi]

Watching Denver local ABC (channel 7) news and they just said cameras aren't going to be allowed in the Watts hearing tomorrow. According to ABC, the prosecution was OK w/having it televised but the defense objected, saying it would compromise CW's chance for a fair trial.

Channel 7 also noted the trial is being moved up from 11/19, sooner than expected but no one will give them a reason why.

That sounds like he may be going to plead. I'd give a lot for that to happen because the family doesn't need to suffer any more than they already have.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I think he is not a good speaker, and it will be more detrimental than his orange jumpsuit. . He somehow managed to pull it together when he thought he fooled everyone, during the porch interview, but on trial, he’d probably be “a mumbler”.

IMO CW didn't pull it together during his porch interview. It was an epic fail.

jmo

 

[Amonet]

That sounds like he may be going to plead. I'd give a lot for that to happen because the family doesn't need to suffer any more than they already have.

I'm not convinced he's going to plead, but I do agree with you about the family's suffering

I would have thought, as someone who knows nothing to little about trials, that CW would at least wait until after the probable cause hearing and see if the DA puts the DP on the table before contemplating pleading.

 

[JudgeJudi]

It takes a long time to strangle someone. I'm pretty sure he had time to think. If he didn't kill his girls, there was no reason not to seek help for them. IMO

He didn't need to strangle SW at all. If, big IF, he saw her strangling Cece, he only had to knock her away, incapacitate her and immediately try and resuscitate the child and/or ring 911. He's, as we say, "full of it" if he thinks people will buy that lie.

 

[MCDRAW]

I wonder why, since we've already seen him in that garb.

I think because so much was said about how emotionless he was in his first court appearance. JMO

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm not convinced he's going to plead, but I do agree with you about the family's suffering

I would have thought, as someone who knows nothing to little about trials, that CW would at least wait until after the probable cause hearing and see if the DA puts the DP on the table before contemplating pleading.

I agree with you. It's really just wishful thinking on my part. This whole case is beyond ugly.

 

[MerryB]

I believe we all want the truth to come out. I have looked at it from every angle, trying to come up with different scenarios. I am a very logical thinker. Always have seen things as either black or white. Now that I am older I can see gray areas. The trouble I am having even considering that SW killed her children, (and I have tried) is that it just doesn't make sense to me. His actions weren't logical. His interview seriously contradicted the loving father act. He knew his children were dead and he couldn't act sad, scared, or desperate. He had just killed his wife and unborn child, yet he didn't act traumatized. I can't imagine seeing my children killed and knowing I had killed someone, and not be traumatized. He couldn't have been, because he laughed during the interview. I know that there is a lot of evidence that we don't know anything about on both sides. Maybe when we have heard it all, I will change my mind. It will have to be very good evidence, something other than she was angry over his affair, for it to let me get past him laughing, knowing his precious babies were dead. JMO

@MCDRAW thank you for responding in a way that exemplifies how we can discuss different opinions and ideas in a respectful and cordial way.
I happen to agree with you that his actions afterwards were not logical, and I am in no way excusing them. In fact, I think he very well may be guilty. My hesitation to condemn him at this point is based on the fact that, as you stated, there is still a lot of evidence we haven’t been made aware of on both sides. I have observed things that make me wonder about jumping to conclusions. I enjoy “sleuthing” because I like looking at all the possibilities and angles.
Whatever the truth is, I hope we learn it and those innocent children receive justice.

 

[Nikynoo]

But he could deny it - e.g via a family statement

This would be fully OK if the innuendo is false - it could be prejudicial to his trial!

The family is also saying nada

 

[Nikynoo]

So, CW is declared "indigent", and using public defense. Interesting.

sorry, I don't understand. Why is the use of (very good) public defenders interesting?

 

[Tortoise]

sorry, I don't understand. Why is the use of (very good) public defenders interesting?

I read it to be both those details are interesting. I had to look up the meaning of indigent and it means poor, needy. The two are perhaps unexpected to the poster, or just interesting.

 

[Tortoise]

I think because so much was said about how emotionless he was in his first court appearance. JMO

I think it also shows he wants to have control. I was quite surprised by his application tbh.

 

[LittleFleurDeLys]

It takes a long time to strangle someone. I'm pretty sure he had time to think. If he didn't kill his girls, there was no reason not to seek help for them. IMO

For me it seems also like a very personal act on somebody. At least in cases like this, when a spouse or child gets murdered by their own parent or anybody else they knew better. For several minutes you have kind of total control of the other person, which can not speak nor breath and will sooner or later die in your own hands and due to your own hands. It's silent but very aggressive. Maybe that suited his personality.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I've also read that small children can be less affected by rigor.

That's true because the development of rigor mortis is affected by total body muscle mass and develops poorly in young children.

 

[NuttMegg]

and those innocent children receive justice.

BBM as does their mother

 

[Tortoise]

For me it seems also like a very personal act on somebody. At least in cases like this, when a spouse or child gets murdered by their own parent or anybody else they knew better. For several minutes you have kind of total control of the other person, which can not speak nor breath and will sooner or later die in your own hands and due to your own hands. It's silent but very aggressive. Maybe that suited his personality.

Yes, brutal and so many other things, like totally switched off to humanity, warmth, life, their terror, their pain, their suffering, for long minutes - it's unimaginable if you watch a clock ticking out minutes. He hides that side of himself well in the everyday persona that I've seen.

 

[NuttMegg]

The family is also saying nada

Someone is distributing many many sympathetic childhood photos of CW which are ending up on sites devoted to blaming Shan'nan and using her videos to spread rumors and say cruel unsubstantiated things about the victim.

 

[Backstroke10]

I have no problem believing that CW would/could be interested in having a male lover. But I had a hard time believing this particular person, only because they were originally tweeting about their affair with him, and posting on FB. And that seemed odd and troll like, given the gruesome circumstances.

I would have thought one would first call LE or the FBI, and not post it all over their twitter feed. JMO

Do we know he didn't talk to LE first? I know on that Bandfield transcript it talks about how LE confirms the story (not exact words but something like that). It seems that show and LE have seen the texts. IMO do I think it's odd he didn't tell LE first, yes, but does it really matter?