Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *CW GUILTY* #48

[dixiegirl1035]

I think he probably used it because of the insanely popular Ashton Kutcher television show "Punked." They played pranks on people, usually famous people, and videotaped it. A more modern version of "Candid Camera." We use the term frequently in our house. IMO there's no double entrende there. It's just a popular way of saying "You got tricked" or "I got you".

I did not listen to the podcast, who is he saying tricked him, and made a joke on him? Certainly he couldn't be saying it was the defense attorneys? I'm confused now. Again, I did not listen to the podcast that is labeled that name.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

I think I have a problem with the idea of a rejected Alford plea but I'm not sure if I can express it clearly. Is it denying him a right that he can then claim forced his hand?

I don’t think so but the lawyers will have to confirm. I have never watched a case where there was a claim that an Alford plea, or the opportunity to admit the prosecution has enough evidence to convict without admitting guilt was a right.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

I did not listen to the podcast, who is he saying tricked him, and made a joke on him? Certainly he couldn't be saying it was the defense attorneys? I'm confused now. Again, I did not listen to the podcast that is labeled that name.

Yes, he is saying the defense attorneys punked him. That they could not have done their due diligence in this short amount of time and the FB videos provided a defense.

 

[gitana1]

I am not commenting on the diagnosis, but “high functioning” also implies “able to tell right from wrong”. Autism with low IQ or nonverbal one surely deserves some type of leniency.

But look at CW. He was able to get a job, he had a family and kids, a support group, and even people who fell in love with him, on the side. Asperger’s or not Asperger’s, he was darn high-functioning. So there is no way he did not understand that killing his whole family on a whim was wrong, nor was he unaware of normal, civilized ways out of the situation.

I thought they were simply trying to explain how he could seem so unconcerned and detached after his kids were murdered and why he might've quickly disposed of the bodies.

A few times I've said the only way I'd maybe consider his story is if he had brain damage or a neurological condition. (As well as other stuff regarding Shanann and the autopsies). Because nothing explains his post-death conduct except guilt.

And now. Voila. His sister is claiming a neurological disorder.

 

[Tortoise]

I don’t think so but the lawyers will have to confirm. I have never watched a case where there was a claim that an Alford plea, or the opportunity to admit the prosecution has enough evidence to convict without admitting guilt was a right.

I'm not sure I understand you, are you saying an Alford plea isn't a defendant's right? I don't know if it is or isn't, but I imagined that a Supreme Court ruling would apply to everyone. Law isn't my strongest point.

 

[mtnlites]

Me too. Many of us would be surprised if we looked up the newish street meanings of common terms we've used for years.

While I am aware that this other definition exists, I've never heard it used in that way before. The teens and pre-teens I know (the ones who might be using these phrases in a new way) still use the term to mean "tricked." It's not a phrase that has gone out of style. Considering the context of the video in question, I have no reason to think it was used to mean anything else.

 

[gitana1]

Yeah it doesn’t make sense here. I worked on a case where the defendant was accused of very subtle social manipulation to further a fraudulent scheme and he claimed he had autism so that type of social engineering was outside of his capabilities. It didn’t work but I understand the defense more in that type of case where the conductor of an elaborate fraudulent orchestra does require social skills and an ability to read cues and manipulate them. I don’t see how it would impact culpability for murder!

It wouldn't. They believe he's innocent and are trying to come up with an explanation for his bizarre, guilty, post-crime behavior.

They're trying to say he acted that way because he has a disorder. Not because he was guilty.

 

[mtnlites]

I did not listen to the podcast, who is he saying tricked him, and made a joke on him? Certainly he couldn't be saying it was the defense attorneys? I'm confused now. Again, I did not listen to the podcast that is labeled that name.

The video attorney is implying that the attorneys did such a thing (tricked) to CW.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

I'm not sure I understand you, are you saying an Alford plea isn't a defendant's right? I don't know if it is or isn't, but I imagined that a Supreme Court ruling would apply to everyone. Law isn't my strongest point.

I am not sure I know what I am saying either, lol. Trying to say negotiating for an Alford plea is no different than negotiation for a lesser charge. The prosecution rejecting the possible offer of an Alford plea is no different than rejecting an offer of lesser charges. It does not violate the defendants rights or force his hand.

 

[gitana1]

I think I have a problem with the idea of a rejected Alford plea but I'm not sure if I can express it clearly. Is it denying him a right that he can then claim forced his hand?

Not remotely.

 

[Tortoise]

Not remotely.

That's good then.

 

[BabyButterfly]

The first plea deal that was rejected — don’t you think it was probably something to the effect of ‘Ok, I plead guity to definitely killing Shanann, but I totally, like, didn’t kill the girls”.

 

[gitana1]

Did the plea deal include keeping the autopsy results closed? There may be some really horrific information about CW, that is so over the top repugnant, that his legal team laid it all out for CW, and told him that a trial would detail every single aspect of the murders. CW can keep his disgusting secrets from general knowledge with a plea. He probably jumped for it.

No. And anything other than what he was charged with, if determined by an autopsy, would lead to more charges, IMO.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Sorry if this was posted already and I missed it. ...

Source Says There Was A Lot Of 'Yelling And Crying' Before Chris Watts Pleaded Guilty To Murder

Chris Watts did not want to plead guilty to murder. A source told People that the Colorado dad yelled and cried before confessing to the crime. With the help of his lawyers, however, he quickly realized that he didn’t really have any other choice.​

“Their evidence against him was overwhelming,” the source said of the 33-year-old — who was charged with killing his wife Shan’ann Watts, 34, and their daughters, Bella and Celeste. “There was some yelling and some crying, but eventually he acknowledged that his life was over after he killed Shan’ann. He would have been facing years of legal challenges, and best-case scenario he would have been acquitted. Worst-case scenario, he gets put to death.”​

 

[dixiegirl1035]

< respectfully snipped>
And now. Voila. His sister is claiming a neurological disorder.

I missed the MSM link. Can somebody throw it up here on the threads as even yesterday somebody was asking if he had a sibling.

TIA

 

[gitana1]

Having watched the presser again I’m curious about the motivation behind seeking the plea. Whilst the DA said the decision to take the DP off the table happened after he travelled to NC to speak to Shananns family it must have been clear to CWs attorneys that the DP is rarely sought in Colorado.

Rarely sought. Rarely sentenced. And not imposed since 1979.

Plus, I believe her family made statements indicating their disapproval of it early on.

 

[gitana1]

Didn't he formally request visitor logs be kept sealed?

I wondered whether he had been visited by a psych expert, but maybe that isn't subject to the same restrictions, ie recorded and timed.

I also think one of gitana's posts suggests he had two visitors of 30 minutes each, maybe I misunderstood it. I'll have a read back.

His family (three) visited him for 30 minutes each, apparently.

Psych experts would not be recorded. That's confidential HIPAA stuff.

 

[NuttMegg]

Sorry if this was posted already and I missed it. ...

Source Says There Was A Lot Of 'Yelling And Crying' Before Chris Watts Pleaded Guilty To Murder

Chris Watts did not want to plead guilty to murder. A source told People that the Colorado dad yelled and cried before confessing to the crime. With the help of his lawyers, however, he quickly realized that he didn’t really have any other choice.​

“Their evidence against him was overwhelming,” the source said of the 33-year-old — who was charged with killing his wife Shan’ann Watts, 34, and their daughters, Bella and Celeste. “There was some yelling and some crying, but eventually he acknowledged that his life was over after he killed Shan’ann. He would have been facing years of legal challenges, and best-case scenario he would have been acquitted. Worst-case scenario, he gets put to death.”​

Given that (IMO) we can count out the lawyers as sources, who would benefit from spreading the idea that "his life was over after he killed Shan'ann" ie IMO no one would believe him anyway. (no mention of the kids).

 

[gitana1]

I find it strange that it requires a court application since privilege is a given right.

It did not. He never filed a motion not to record the visits with psych experts. He filed a motion to have his visitor logs themselves, sealed. So no one would know what experts visited.

 

[Thepoet]

Shanann loved CW and did a great deal for him in all the ways she could think of to do. Cece and Bella loved and trusted their daddy, you can see it in videos and photos. Nico was a new life blossoming toward being born. CW murdered them all because they were in the way of a life he wanted to live. He knew it was bad, he knew what he did was abhorrent, he knew all of it was wrong, and he didn't care! He did it anyway, because it served his sick, twisted purpose! . Why would it matter now if he had a defect? (He IS a defect) I believe he was properly informed in ALL facets of the case, on both sides. I believe he made an informed decision. I believe he has been treated more than fairly. Why does the "poor CW, it wasn't his fault" train keep running? What will it take to finally derail it?