Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *Arrest* #22

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never saw him angry. I never saw him lose his cool. He just went with the flow. I wasn’t with him every moment of his life so this is just what I witnessed.

Thanks for that. That matches with many family annihilator types. Scott Peterson. Neil Entwistle. Mark Hacking. Chris Coleman. And on and on.

Fits the profile I wrote about in a previous post.

Quiet. Good. Didn't stand out much. Didn't get into trouble. Didn't show signs of volatility or anger.

Also "not a lot of girlfriends" seems to match as well.
 
Curious in cases where a public defender is involved (or maybe this applies to hiring private defense attorneys as well) -

1. How much time can the lawyers spend with their clients while building a case? I imagine they could easily spend quite a bit of time...
2. I believe I read it isn't the lawyers' job to prove their innocence, but to provide them with a fair trial. What if the defendant doesn't admit to anything, or in this case, only to certain things? If they don't admit to any wrongdoing, then the attorneys try to prove their innocence, but in CWs case, the attorneys have to believe what he's told them? Will they try to grill him for the truth (assuming what he's said isn't true)?
3. It must be difficult in many cases if the lawyers don't believe one iota of what the client is telling them. Do they try to build a defense case around ridiculousness, making themselves look ridiculous?

If anyone is interested in how the defense builds their case, I highly recommend watching The Staircase on Netflix. It's a really in depth look from the defense perspective. I was fascinated. In this case it was private defense attorneys.
 
I agree and IMO it's rude, disrespectful, against TOS and totally uncalled for.
@Tippy Lynn @MerryB I wholeheartedly agree! IMO it takes a lot of courage to admit a connection, even under anonymity, with C.W.
Calling @Trinket78 biased is totally unnecessary, I get maybe further questioning an answer that was given, but definitely not ok in a condescending, accusatory manner, I thought I read that in the rules somewhere, anyway. MOO
 
I agree and I have every intention of still posting my observations. Unfortunately when you are in the minority it is quite difficult to be heard over others who don't share your views/observations. I have witnessed many say they are hesitant to join in the discussion as their theories are shot down, ridiculed and lost in the midst of others trying to prove their point. Essentially being drowned out by the masses.
Ridiculing another's posts is against TOS, as for not being heard, I am not sure what you can do about that, because posters have the right to post their opinions. It is not a structured debate where one speaks in turn.
 
Credit, maybe? It's not uncommon for people to live beyond their means, imo. I'm not sure if you can answer this, but did Chris have any serious relationships before he met Shanann? I think it was said he didn't in high school, but I was thinking of the years before he got married. And if so, how would you describe that relationship. I know a lot of what's been asked is kind of on the surface, but how would you describe CW? In general.
He was quiet. An introvert. Hard worker. Very passive. Never in trouble. Book smart.
There were no “serious” girlfriends until Shanann.
 
Let me try to answer your question. (Sorry in advance if this answer gets too long.)

I used to do some criminal defense work back in the early part of my career. I practiced in a rural area, and if you were an attorney practicing in that county and you did any trial work and you didn't work for the district attorney's office, then you were expected to take court-appointed cases representing indigent criminal defendants. So it wasn't a big part of my practice, but I did enough to get my feet wet.

I digress, but I will say that part of the reason that I became a lawyer in a rural area was the influence of To Kill a Mockingbird and the ideal of Atticus Finch.

Some of the differences between private and public defenders (PDs) are small and some are large. We presume both are competent and want to do a good job. Court-appointed public defenders are paid a small fraction of the money demanded by private criminal defense attorneys. For instance, (this information is old) I might have charged a private-pay client $2,500 to defend a DWI case; whereas the court appointed attorney might get $500.

Today, many areas, especially more populous areas, are served by public defenders offices, which are attorneys hired by an agency of the county or state and paid a salary with some benefits. (I need to look up whether PDs are paid as much as ADAs with similar experience. They should be!) But these PDs have a caseload: that is, a number of cases that they are assigned at one time. Generally, they have lots of cases and lots of clients to represent, so it is physically impossible to spend much time with any one client. Private attorneys have the luxury of spending more time because they have fewer cases, and that's one reason they charge more.

In a high-profile case like the present one, I'm sure several PD attorneys, investigators and support staff are assigned to this case. I cannot say how many other cases those attorneys may have on their caseload, but it is understood that a significant amount of time will need to be devoted to this case.

Not sure about Colorado, but in the state where I used to practice, if the case was a "capital murder" case (meaning that the punishment range included the possibility of the death sentence), then defense attorneys on those cases had to be specially certified for competency.

The defense's job is to 1) ensure the defendant gets a fair trial; 2) obtain a not guilty verdict if possible; and 3) obtain the lowest sentence possible.

The defendant gets to direct the strategy of the defense; meaning, he gets to decide whether he is going to testify; the nature of the defense; etc. The lawyer, with the assistance of the client, makes what we could call "tactical" decisions; such as what witnesses to interview, subpoena to testify, what questions to ask at trial, etc.

The defense lawyer has two loyalties here. He is an officer of the court, which means he can't lie or mislead the court or jury (he cannot put on evidence that he knows is false), and he is bound by the law and the rules of procedure and evidence. He also has a duty to inform the client of the law and the facts, so the client can make informed decisions; and he is bound to follow the defendant's stated strategy, if he can do so within the bounds of the law and ethics.

Some attorneys say you shouldn't ask the client if he is guilty or not because you don't really want to know the answer to that question. I always asked my client for their version of the facts, and I took them as true unless my common sense told me otherwise. If confronted with a situation where the client's story doesn't seem possible, then I would ask him about it (not grill). You always want your defense to seem as plausible as possible. You can't build a credible case around something that is ridiculous (your word).

In the end, I wasn't always 100% comfortable practicing criminal defense because it didn't set well with me having to establish reasonable doubt when I didn't believe it myself. There's a line there somewhere, and I wasn't comfortable stirring up confusion when it didn't seem appropriate. (Other defense attorneys can chime in here---lots of them do a great job without it bothering their consciences, and they do it ethically.)

I hope that helps. Sorry so long.
Thanks Bill, that is really useful. I too, decided that criminal law was not for me, for the same reasons.
 
I came on here because this just personally interests (and dumbfounds) me... I had no intention of verifying myself, and no intention of even posting anything.

And look where that got me... I’m hopelessly addicted and keep coming back :)
Glad that you here!
To me it seems inhumanly cruel. I have dealt, for decades, with filling boats with diesel, and cleaning bilges, and hoping that I didn't kill myself by siphoning gas, climbing up on a ladder to fill the house tank with heating oil, filling kerosene lamps, filling up and pumping up the gas coleman lanterns, mixing thick oil into the outboard motor gas and making sure it's mixed in, and cleaning myself up afterwards. I can't imagine purposely doing that even to a dead body. But, do we even have proof that they were dead when he threw them in the toxic oil?
OMG!!! Horrible thought! Doesn't the affidavit make it pretty clear they were already dead?
 
Well said. I appreciate your honesty, I too have seen hateful things being said about both families and it saddens me. I would love the opportunity to discuss CW's version but alas I am in the minority and stopped in my tracks by others who know CW killed the girls.
I'm sure you can discuss it as long as it doesn't break any rules. You shouldn't feel like you can't express your opinion because others don't agree. For all you know others may agree with you but are reluctant for the same reason you are. Jmo
 
Someone said in this thread they would like to hear more from CW's family or friends. Seriously? I don't blame them at all for laying low. I have read some horrible things being said about CW's family in other discussion groups. I tried to call them out on it the other day and I thought I was going to be lynched. I have nothing but empathy for SW and CW's family and friends. Just like the nut allergy incident that happened between SW and her MIL. Families disagree. That doesn't mean that they dont love and care for one another. CW has admitted to killing his wife. And, of course we know that he then did some despicable things! The rest of the story has not been told yet. We do not know anything for sure other than what has been shared by court documents and or the attorneys. All this other stuff is rumor and speculation. And before you ask, no, I am not defending CW. But, I guess I am one of the few people in the world that still believe you are innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, this is so long.

Well said. I don't blame either family for staying out of public view. I have no doubt both sets of grandparents are grieving at their profound loss. The question many of us here are asking is "why" and both families have to be struggling with an answer more than we are. JMO
 
I'm sure you can discuss it as long as it doesn't break any rules. You shouldn't feel like you can't express your opinion because others don't agree. For all you know others may agree with you but are reluctant for the same reason you are. Jmo
Which is exactly what I said. Not I but others have expressed they don't feel able to share their observations. I can only speak for myself and can't force others who are reluctant to do so.
 
Someone said in this thread they would like to hear more from CW's family or friends. Seriously? I don't blame them at all for laying low. I have read some horrible things being said about CW's family in other discussion groups. I tried to call them out on it the other day and I thought I was going to be lynched. I have nothing but empathy for SW and CW's family and friends. Just like the nut allergy incident that happened between SW and her MIL. Families disagree. That doesn't mean that they dont love and care for one another. CW has admitted to killing his wife. And, of course we know that he then did some despicable things! The rest of the story has not been told yet. We do not know anything for sure other than what has been shared by court documents and or the attorneys. All this other stuff is rumor and speculation. And before you ask, no, I am not defending CW. But, I guess I am one of the few people in the world that still believe you are innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, this is so long.

I feel heartbroken for CW's family as I do for SW's family. Seeing the video of "Meme" (CW's mom) arriving at the airport and her overwhelming love and joy at seeing her grand babies made her very real to me. It's got to be utterly devastating for them. I can't imagine the position they're in. Just devastating.
 
With respect, no one has stopped anyone from discussing some theory. Others disagreeing with you is not preventing you from discussing it and because there may be more people disagreeing does not mean that you are being silenced
You have the right to post your opinion and others have the right to post theirs in relation to yours.

I've found it illuminating to read the posts of people who haven't been posting much or who said that they have been blasted in the past or expressed a range of similar views. There have been quite a few posters who made those remarks.
 
I agree and I have every intention of still posting my observations. Unfortunately when you are in the minority it is quite difficult to be heard over others who don't share your views/observations. I have witnessed many say they are hesitant to join in the discussion as their theories are shot down, ridiculed and lost in the midst of others trying to prove their point. Essentially being drowned out by the masses.
Look on the bright side...there is no downvoting.
 
I still think that he couldn't fit her in the hole or that someone was coming and he saw the dust trail on the road. It was daylight and over 80 deg per AB. But, you know, he didn't have to take over the burial decision, they could have had a decent burial, he chose to do the cruel and haphazard burials all by himself. He could have called 911, tried to save them or legally verified their deaths, we don't even know if they were dead or not.
It seems clear to me that he chose that place for a reason, and the reason had to be the oil tanks because what other reason would there be to risk burying them at his place of work? He had to have believed those bodies wouldn’t be discovered there for a long time, if ever. It doesn’t make sense that he planned to place 2 in the tanks and 1 in the ground, but for some reason, he couldn’t get SW into a tank. I read, when this first happened, that this particular location was going to slow down on oil production for awhile. Can’t remember where I read it, not sure if it’s true. I’d like to find out.
 
Let me try to answer your question. (Sorry in advance if this answer gets too long.)

I used to do some criminal defense work back in the early part of my career. I practiced in a rural area, and if you were an attorney practicing in that county and you did any trial work and you didn't work for the district attorney's office, then you were expected to take court-appointed cases representing indigent criminal defendants. So it wasn't a big part of my practice, but I did enough to get my feet wet.

I digress, but I will say that part of the reason that I became a lawyer in a rural area was the influence of To Kill a Mockingbird and the ideal of Atticus Finch.

Some of the differences between private and public defenders (PDs) are small and some are large. We presume both are competent and want to do a good job. Court-appointed public defenders are paid a small fraction of the money demanded by private criminal defense attorneys. For instance, (this information is old) I might have charged a private-pay client $2,500 to defend a DWI case; whereas the court appointed attorney might get $500.

Today, many areas, especially more populous areas, are served by public defenders offices, which are attorneys hired by an agency of the county or state and paid a salary with some benefits. (I need to look up whether PDs are paid as much as ADAs with similar experience. They should be!) But these PDs have a caseload: that is, a number of cases that they are assigned at one time. Generally, they have lots of cases and lots of clients to represent, so it is physically impossible to spend much time with any one client. Private attorneys have the luxury of spending more time because they have fewer cases, and that's one reason they charge more.

In a high-profile case like the present one, I'm sure several PD attorneys, investigators and support staff are assigned to this case. I cannot say how many other cases those attorneys may have on their caseload, but it is understood that a significant amount of time will need to be devoted to this case.

Not sure about Colorado, but in the state where I used to practice, if the case was a "capital murder" case (meaning that the punishment range included the possibility of the death sentence), then defense attorneys on those cases had to be specially certified for competency.

The defense's job is to 1) ensure the defendant gets a fair trial; 2) obtain a not guilty verdict if possible; and 3) obtain the lowest sentence possible.

The defendant gets to direct the strategy of the defense; meaning, he gets to decide whether he is going to testify; the nature of the defense; etc. The lawyer, with the assistance of the client, makes what we could call "tactical" decisions; such as what witnesses to interview, subpoena to testify, what questions to ask at trial, etc.

The defense lawyer has two loyalties here. He is an officer of the court, which means he can't lie or mislead the court or jury (he cannot put on evidence that he knows is false), and he is bound by the law and the rules of procedure and evidence. He also has a duty to inform the client of the law and the facts, so the client can make informed decisions; and he is bound to follow the defendant's stated strategy, if he can do so within the bounds of the law and ethics.

Some attorneys say you shouldn't ask the client if he is guilty or not because you don't really want to know the answer to that question. I always asked my client for their version of the facts, and I took them as true unless my common sense told me otherwise. If confronted with a situation where the client's story doesn't seem possible, then I would ask him about it (not grill). You always want your defense to seem as plausible as possible. You can't build a credible case around something that is ridiculous (your word).

In the end, I wasn't always 100% comfortable practicing criminal defense because it didn't set well with me having to establish reasonable doubt when I didn't believe it myself. There's a line there somewhere, and I wasn't comfortable stirring up confusion when it didn't seem appropriate. (Other defense attorneys can chime in here---lots of them do a great job without it bothering their consciences, and they do it ethically.)

I hope that helps. Sorry so long.
Not long at all and a great explanation. It makes it all clear to me.
 
Let me try to answer your question. (Sorry in advance if this answer gets too long.)

Thanks very much, Bill Carson - your input is appreciated! I can certainly understand what a challenge that role could be in many cases where there isn't a clear cut guilty defendant - let's just provide them the fairest outcome possible. Certainly not a profession I'd ever want to take on myself.
 
Let me try to answer your question. (Sorry in advance if this answer gets too long.)

I used to do some criminal defense work back in the early part of my career. I practiced in a rural area, and if you were an attorney practicing in that county and you did any trial work and you didn't work for the district attorney's office, then you were expected to take court-appointed cases representing indigent criminal defendants. So it wasn't a big part of my practice, but I did enough to get my feet wet.

I digress, but I will say that part of the reason that I became a lawyer in a rural area was the influence of To Kill a Mockingbird and the ideal of Atticus Finch.

Some of the differences between private and public defenders (PDs) are small and some are large. We presume both are competent and want to do a good job. Court-appointed public defenders are paid a small fraction of the money demanded by private criminal defense attorneys. For instance, (this information is old) I might have charged a private-pay client $2,500 to defend a DWI case; whereas the court appointed attorney might get $500.

Today, many areas, especially more populous areas, are served by public defenders offices, which are attorneys hired by an agency of the county or state and paid a salary with some benefits. (I need to look up whether PDs are paid as much as ADAs with similar experience. They should be!) But these PDs have a caseload: that is, a number of cases that they are assigned at one time. Generally, they have lots of cases and lots of clients to represent, so it is physically impossible to spend much time with any one client. Private attorneys have the luxury of spending more time because they have fewer cases, and that's one reason they charge more.

In a high-profile case like the present one, I'm sure several PD attorneys, investigators and support staff are assigned to this case. I cannot say how many other cases those attorneys may have on their caseload, but it is understood that a significant amount of time will need to be devoted to this case.

Not sure about Colorado, but in the state where I used to practice, if the case was a "capital murder" case (meaning that the punishment range included the possibility of the death sentence), then defense attorneys on those cases had to be specially certified for competency.

The defense's job is to 1) ensure the defendant gets a fair trial; 2) obtain a not guilty verdict if possible; and 3) obtain the lowest sentence possible.

The defendant gets to direct the strategy of the defense; meaning, he gets to decide whether he is going to testify; the nature of the defense; etc. The lawyer, with the assistance of the client, makes what we could call "tactical" decisions; such as what witnesses to interview, subpoena to testify, what questions to ask at trial, etc.

The defense lawyer has two loyalties here. He is an officer of the court, which means he can't lie or mislead the court or jury (he cannot put on evidence that he knows is false), and he is bound by the law and the rules of procedure and evidence. He also has a duty to inform the client of the law and the facts, so the client can make informed decisions; and he is bound to follow the defendant's stated strategy, if he can do so within the bounds of the law and ethics.

Some attorneys say you shouldn't ask the client if he is guilty or not because you don't really want to know the answer to that question. I always asked my client for their version of the facts, and I took them as true unless my common sense told me otherwise. If confronted with a situation where the client's story doesn't seem possible, then I would ask him about it (not grill). You always want your defense to seem as plausible as possible. You can't build a credible case around something that is ridiculous (your word).

In the end, I wasn't always 100% comfortable practicing criminal defense because it didn't set well with me having to establish reasonable doubt when I didn't believe it myself. There's a line there somewhere, and I wasn't comfortable stirring up confusion when it didn't seem appropriate. (Other defense attorneys can chime in here---lots of them do a great job without it bothering their consciences, and they do it ethically.)

I hope that helps. Sorry so long.
That was very insightful, Bill, thank you for that. I always appreciate your thoughtful posts.
 
IMO you’re right to see potential significance in the separation of mama & the babies.

ITA. If CW had planned this in advance as many believe, he would have disposed SW's body someplace else along the way. It was an incredibly remote area. Disposal of all three at his work site is a reflection of panic rather than premeditation. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
3,040
Total visitors
3,189

Forum statistics

Threads
594,111
Messages
17,999,296
Members
229,314
Latest member
Jlop
Back
Top