Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *CW GUILTY* #47

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #581
Continuation of summary of the main points of the podcast: Tricia, liltexans, gitana1, Levi Page. Some but not all is verbatim.

G1: Yes. Well, it is true sometimes that I notice in these FA cases that it seems to me that there’s typically at least one, sometimes two, parents that are extremely enmeshed and dysfunctional, personality disordered, whether it’s borderline, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, but they’re extremely enmeshed with their child. I’m thinking of all these different cases as I’m saying this – Scott Peterson – and there’s some great books about that generational dysfunction. [Discusses mother’s background]. Here’s this little baby and he’s always smiling because he knows he has to be perfect or he’s going to be completely rejected. [Discusses Casey Anthony] She had to be a perfect mirror of her mother. I think that’s a theme with a lot of these FAs, that their parents are very controlling and their children have to be a perfect way and have to be this sort of mirror of the parent’s emotions and the parent’s personality.

But when those kids step outside the doors of their house, they are projected as perfect by the parents. The parents – because they view the child as really the same as themselves or a true extension of themselves because of the enmeshment, they will never accept any criticism of their children and they will – it doesn’t matter how obvious the evidence is, “My child is perfect. They did not do this”. They refuse to believe it. So the kid has this kind of dual thing going on where they’re both afraid of not – of having a personality that’s different from their parent but they also become extremely adept at manipulating and lying because every time someone comes and says, “Hey, your kid did …” XYZ, the mother says, “No they didn’t”. “Did you?” “No, mom”. And they’re believed because the mother or the father has to believe it. So it’s a kind of scary combination of not having a personality, having sort of an annihilated personhood identity crisis and also being really good at manipulation and deception. It’s quite frightening. So I do think that we see that a lot. I just want to mention, so that I can be fair to both genders, but Chris Coleman’s father was, I think, a lot like that – very exacting.

Unfortunately, what you see with these kinds of parents is nobody is good enough for their child and they’re always going to blame the mate for what happens. Even if they are the victim of their child, they’re going to blame the mate for that.

T: Absolutely. Anything bad about their child can’t be real, but if it is, it’s somebody else’s fault.

G1: Exactly.

To be cont’d
 
  • #582
.
 
  • #583
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #584
just listened to it and it was beyond great. I have had my opionions during this time but hesitated to write them bcs others do that so much better than I do. One thing stood out (for me) from the start and that is the nut incident and I do honestly think it really happened. That said I sincerly feel sorry for CW parents to be in this tragic nightmare.
 
  • #585
Continuation of summary of the main points of the podcast: Tricia, liltexans, gitana1, Levi Page. Some but not all is verbatim.

T: Let’s go to liltexans, one of our incredible moderators on Websleuths. Liltexans, you have really been involved as far as the moderation on the Shan’ann Watts thread and it has been very difficult because emotions are running high. And like what was mentioned before, what may be seen as obvious to us, not obvious to everybody else. If you wouldn’t mind just telling us a little bit about your experience with the people on WS and let’s kind of fold into – let’s go into the social media aspect of this because it’s huge, and then we’re gonna talk about a podcast called Murder Rap Sesh. One of the podcast hosts was actually in the courtroom the day that CW pleaded guilty, and they’re leaning towards Chris and his family and it’s very interesting.

Lt: I’ve been happy to moderate the threads for the Watts case and any other case but it is difficult in these type of cases because we are a victim friendly forum which is one of the things that drew me to WS years ago in the first place and it’s a fine line as a moderator. You’re often just the messenger and people take it out on you when you’re asking them to tone things down or not discuss something. We’re human too and we make mistakes and we also don’t necessarily like having to allow discussions that aren’t victim friendly quite honestly, but when a defence puts forth, when someone hasn’t been convicted and the defence puts forth, isn’t victim friendly, we do have to allow some moderated discussion of it because at that point it’s still an open question.

And so it was personally distasteful to me often to have to allow some of that discussion that I didn’t really relate to because I’ve never seen – I don’t see that when I look at Shan’ann’s videos. I see a vibrant, amazing woman who has this cool life, who has a personality that’s really different from mine and I just think – just loved life and just put it all out there. To me she wore her heart on her sleeve, and she probably was just a very trusting person. And so to hear people dissect things, it just always seemed very unfair to me because we don’t have CW’s social media because conveniently, he apparently removed all of that about a week before the murders. So it’s always been one-sided and that’s always been hard for me personally to deal with, that we only have a select group of her videos and her posts, and people, not just on WS, but people in general judge based on that and he somehow gets a pass. [Discusses Sandy Hook]]

So Chris, what is there to say about him – he must be amazing because he doesn’t have any social media that we can analyse

T: Yes, you’re right, and that leads me to this podcast.

To be cont’d
 
  • #586
Listened to the latest podcast a few hours ago. Good info & insight. Much appreciation to Tricia, Gitana1, LilTexan and Levi. Looking forward to a future podcast with Colorado303 & Nick Thayer .
 
Last edited:
  • #587
on the apologist thing.
it doesnt matter what case you look at or work with there will be an apologist ...at least one. even here on websleuths.
haven't seen a case yet where it doesn't blow my mind how radically different we can all see the same thing and someone will justify away whats going on or occurred.

imo the pattern with it is a belief that a witch hunt of the masses is in place.
AND THAT IS THE REAL CRUX AND HEART OF THE SITUATION for them.

suddenly the victim becomes invisible.
apologist get tunnel vision that everybody is out to get the "accused" with the ol guilty until proven innocent.

its warped.
and its disturbing.
to the point of enabling.
and its growing in form.....

most people charged with a crime....did it.
LE don't pluck evidence out of the sky to pin on innocent people just to keep themselves amused.

common sense, evaluation and probability are lost on apologist.

jmo I have no experience other than personal to support my post...but its so annoying!
 
  • #588
on the apologist thing.
it doesnt matter what case you look at or work with there will be an apologist ...at least one. even here on websleuths.
haven't seen a case yet where it doesn't blow my mind how radically different we can all see the same thing and someone will justify away whats going on or occurred.

imo the pattern with it is a belief that a witch hunt of the masses is in place.
AND THAT IS THE REAL CRUX AND HEART OF THE SITUATION for them.

suddenly the victim becomes invisible.
apologist get tunnel vision that everybody is out to get the "accused" with the ol guilty until proven innocent.

its warped.
and its disturbing.
to the point of enabling.
and its growing in form.....

most people charged with a crime....did it.
LE don't pluck evidence out of the sky to pin on innocent people just to keep themselves amused.

common sense, evaluation and probability are lost on apologist.

jmo I have no experience other than personal to support my post...but its so annoying!


One of the big problems in this crime is that in order to give his defense any weight, you had to think the victim was the one who did the crime. This wasn't just your typical, "I didn't kill my family, it was the one-armed man" defense. It was, "I didn't kill my kids, my wife did." To give Example A any credence is to speculate that there's an elusive criminal out there who just hasn't been caught yet. Personally, I could give weight to such a thing. To give Example B any credit though, you literally must give weight to the idea that the victim themselves performed a heinous crime. It's more than just wanting to see both sides-if you were giving his theory any credence at all than you were suggesting that SW was a murderer. And there was no evidence of that, at least not any that we saw and IMO nothing that's released in the future will point to it, either. Conversely, there was a LOT that pointed to him.
 
  • #589
One of the big problems in this crime is that in order to give his defense any weight, you had to think the victim was the one who did the crime. This wasn't just your typical, "I didn't kill my family, it was the one-armed man" defense. It was, "I didn't kill my kids, my wife did." To give Example A any credence is to speculate that there's an elusive criminal out there who just hasn't been caught yet. Personally, I could give weight to such a thing. To give Example B any credit though, you literally must give weight to the idea that the victim themselves performed a heinous crime. It's more than just wanting to see both sides-if you were giving his theory any credence at all than you were suggesting that SW was a murderer. And there was no evidence of that, at least not any that we saw and IMO nothing that's released in the future will point to it, either. Conversely, there was a LOT that pointed to him.
all your post is right but the focus of my point was on the apologists.
not chris's story specifically.
his was,pretty damn damning and they still refused to follow evidence.
the focus for them was/is the witch hunt against chris.
innocent until proven guilty takes a ugly mind of its own with apologists.

jmo
 
  • #590
  • #591
all your post is right but the focus of my point was on the apologists.
not chris's story specifically.
his was,pretty damn damning and they still refused to follow evidence.
the focus for them was/is the witch hunt against chris.
innocent until proven guilty takes a ugly mind of its own with apologists.

jmo

I was really just offering my own thoughts on the matter and agreeing with you, not challenging you.
 
  • #592
Continuation of summary of the main points of the podcast: Tricia, liltexans, gitana1, Levi Page. Some but not all is verbatim.

T: Gitana, is that normal for a mom to want to get to her son, 33, and talk to him about the plea deal? Apparently, from what I understand, if I’m correct, the family did not talk to him at all while he was in jail. No phone calls, nothing. And so I’m assuming they were really surprised at the guilty plea, and his mother, according to the podcast, had tried to talk to him and she was told not to. I don’t know what’s going on here. Very puzzling. I don’t get it.

G1: I think it’s common for family members to want to be part of plea deals that involve their family but I think that demanding that they make decisions or convince their child one way or the other about a plea deal, I think that’s common with FAs and their families of origin and it kind of shows that dysfunction. My understanding, and I might be wrong, was that each family member, the parents and the sister, were allowed 30 minutes to have a discussion with Chris. I’m not positive whether that was before or after.

Lt: According to the woman on the Murder Rap Sesh podcast it was before the plea hearing the other day. And I agree with you. When I heard that I thought 30 minutes was plenty of time if you’re trying to talk your son off a ledge or out of doing something you don’t feel he should be doing. They also reported that in the courtroom, when everyone was in the courtroom, his mother, reportedly, according to this woman who was there, tried to say something aloud like, “Son, are you sure that you want to do this?”. And according to the woman in the podcast, she was chastised by the defence attorneys to sit down and stop talking.

G1: That does not surprise me. I actually made a post on WS about how I would think that the type of parents of FAs typically come from would be the type to yell out at a hearing. What I heard was that during the 30 minute discussion she started saying, “You can’t agree to this”. They were not allowed to have a discussion with him without defence counsel present is what I heard on the podcast. And they were very upset about that and the mother started saying, “You can’t do this” and the defence counsel, from what I heard, stated, “Listen, if you don’t stop this line of discussion, we’re going to end this and you’re not going to be able to talk to him anymore”. And my feeling, my instinct on this is he was fully on board with this but he was terrified of his family and their reaction. Listen, I can tell you there is no way that defence counsel was telling him, “You are not allowed to talk to them without us present”. There’s no way they were dictating the conditions of this plea to him. He is the one who had to direct that. I can envision him saying, “I’m gonna do this but I can’t face my family”. “Well, they’re gonna have questions”. “Okay. Well maybe I can face them if you’re there. Please don’t let them pressure me”. That’s exactly what I think was going on with that situation. The mother especially was very upset and wanted to control things. Her son didn’t do this and was not allowed to because defence counsel was protecting Chris and his rights to plead guilty.

To be cont’d

What an interesting page this was.
 
  • #593
Continuation of summary of the main points of the podcast: Tricia, liltexans, gitana1, Levi Page. Some but not all is verbatim.

G1: I want to point something out. In the State of Colorado, they have the option of an Alford plea. He has the option of – it’s not just not guilty, he can also plead essentially no contest and he chose not to do that or the DA didn’t accept it and he said, “Okay, fine. I’m pleading guilty”. I think that’s really, really important because an Alford plea basically is saying, “I acknowledge the state has enough evidence to convict me, so I’m not contesting the charges but I am continuing to assert my innocence”. That is an option in Colorado. So for all the people out there saying, “Well, he did this because he was afraid he would be convicted anyhow”. No. He had that option. I’m sure the State wouldn’t accept it because it’s not real accountability but he could have gone to trial and he chose not to do that. So that would have been the out. Maybe when the DA was talking about that first offer they made, which we don’t know what it was, maybe that was it. And I mean looking at that guy’s face, you know he’s not going to, he’s not going to agree to that. I think the fact of the plea really speaks a lot to the truth of what happened that day and the fact that CW knows exactly what he did and he knows exactly what the evidence is and he knows what would come out.

T: Right. I don’t think he could face that embarrassment, his horrified family hearing all the horrific details. What are your thoughts on the family wanting him, apparently at least the mother, wanting him not to do this?

LP: I think it’s a lot of denial. They don’t want to accept the truth and I think we’ve seen that in the Casey Anthony case ‘cause remember for the longest time after Caylee’s body was found that Cindy Anthony was saying that that’s not really Caylee’s body. There was some sort of conspiracy against her daughter, and I think a lot of these families don’t want to accept the fact that their offspring is guilty of murder so they go into this extreme denial. I think a lot of them are very pushy and they want to control the situation and they want to try and control the outcome of what’s going to happen to their offspring but they’re really not going to be able to do that. I mean who should CW listen to, his mother or someone that went to law school and is a lawyer and who going to give him sound legal advice and is not emotionally invested in it.

To be cont’d
 
  • #594
I was really just offering my own thoughts on the matter and agreeing with you, not challenging you.
sorry if I sounded blunt mtnlites! lol
I didn't think you were challenging me..i was agreeing with all your valid points xo
just wanted to clarify its his supporters was my focus. :-)
 
  • #595
mRS had a producer inside the hearing room when CW pled guilty. That was most of the reference to that podcast, it wasn't a blow by blow critique of 13 episodes, just that there were no other insider reports available. Apparently cw mother actually spoke outloud during the hearing, attempting to tell cw what to do/not to do. Sounded bizarre, family had already been allowed 30 minutes with him beforehand, with pds present, iirc.
I miss that old WS emoji with the chin that drops to the floor. So this will have to do :eek:
 
  • #596
You would not believe the reasons that his apologists have for dumping them in filthy crude oil.
He wanted to keep them warm!
He knew where they would be and could visit them any time.
Can you believe it?
No I can't.

To me that sounds like they can't admit they were wrong. That level of imagination, and the lying about Santa comment too, isn't coming from a healthy mind.

MOO
 
  • #597
Continuation of summary of the main points of the podcast: Tricia, liltexans, gitana1, Levi Page. Some but not all is verbatim.

T: Let’s talk about the possibility of, could this be an excuse or reason to rescind his guilty plea in that he was not allowed to meet with his family at all except for 30 minutes before the plea was announced. Gitana, I am so anxious to hear your answer to this. Is there any possibility he can withdraw this plea?

G1: I think the ability for him to do it would be extremely hard because there’s two different factors in Colorado when you come to a withdrawal of plea. One is before sentencing and one is after. It is easier before sentencing, and we are before sentencing. However, there’s no absolute right. He doesn’t have a right to withdraw his plea before sentencing. He’s got to show a few things. He’s got to show that the denial of the request will subvert justice. So if he’s requesting to withdraw his plea, denying that would subvert justice and he has to show that there is a fair and just reason for doing so.

And I know some people who really are not convinced of his guilt are going to pounce on that and say, “Well, he didn’t get to talk to his mommy. That’s fair. It’s fair and just to set it aside because he really should have had the ability to do that”. No. He’s a grown man and that’s not one of the reasons that any of the court cases that discuss what a fair and just reason for withdrawing a plea of guilty would be. I can give you some examples. One would be a denial of the Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. So he’d have to show that his counsel was ineffective. They basically committed malpractice. They were terrible. And I can tell you from watching this case and reading their pleadings and seeing how they strategized, this was a very effective defence team. They were extremely intelligent. I was amazed by them. It scared me, because I started to get scared. I thought, wow, they might pull something off. I felt that eventually he’d be found guilty but it might take a while with this defence team. They knew what they were doing. There’s not going to be any ineffective assistance of counsel.

Also there a plea of guilty entered by mistake or under a misconception of the nature of the charge. So he doesn’t know what he’s pleading to or he doesn’t understand the charges, and none of that is gonna be present I can assure you. And then we’ve got the plea was entered through fear, fraud or official misrepresentation. So maybe the DA is threatening something that isn’t reality or they’re lying about some aspect of the case, or was otherwise made involuntarily for some reason. So his ability to withdraw the plea effectively is not going to be there. Could he try? Yes, and I think that’s why the DA was saying, “Listen, we’re not talking about this. We’re not going to say anything about this case, about the investigation, until after sentencing because then it gets even harder.

To be cont’d
 
  • #598
all your post is right but the focus of my point was on the apologists.
not chris's story specifically.
his was,pretty damn damning and they still refused to follow evidence.
the focus for them was/is the witch hunt against chris.
innocent until proven guilty takes a ugly mind of its own with apologists.

jmo
I found the apologists phenomenon fascinating and bizarre. On SM there was speculation that maybe Chris was sexually abusing the girls and they went nuts-how can you suggest something so disgusting- he might have murdered them but he would never do anything like that- his moral standards are still held in high regard.
 
  • #599
I will have to review my initial thought that he may have had issues with his father, based upon him asking to speak to him first before he would tell the "truth" (another lie). It made it seem to me that his father's opinion of him was very important to him, and so his priority was to persuade him.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet. Just about to. Chris Watts Pleads GUILTY to Killing Wife & Kids/The Cruelty of Social Media/
 
  • #600
Great podcast! I am so thankful I found this site. Intelligent discussion, open minded yet able to follow where the evidence leads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
95
Guests online
1,629
Total visitors
1,724

Forum statistics

Threads
632,345
Messages
18,625,006
Members
243,098
Latest member
sbidbh
Back
Top