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

[dixiegirl1035]

Respectfully, he is being portrayed in the light of who he has shown himself to be, rather than interpretations of SM posts portraying a loving and supportive mother, wife, friend and entrepreneur providing for her family.

He, by his own admission has portrayed himself to be a murdering, cheating liar. He has portrayed himself to be a "man" capable of strangling Shanann to death and killing his unborn son in the process. Instead of calling 911 or attempting to save his babies, one of whom he claims was being actively strangled.

He has portrayed himself to be a "man" capable of loading his dead family into his truck and dumping CeCe and Bella one by one into separate oil tanks. And dumping Shanann and Nico into a shallow grave and shoveling dirt over them.

He has portrayed himself as a "man" who after doing all of this, minimally, can stand in front of a camera with a grin showing off his shirt.

He's shown me who he is, and I believe him.
MOO

:applause:

 

[JDough]

BBM

I watch AB because she's the only one providing case updates daily and I appreciate her coverage. But disagree that she's "digging deep". There have been several things she's speculated on that have been wrong and she could have gotten right if she tried harder. Examples:

1) She had a whole show on how the number of videos SW posted had gone down in the months before her death. Discussion centered around what the decline meant about her mental state and status of the marriage. Fact was SW had actually posted more videos but many had been removed. (I saw at least one of them myself before it disappeared). I've been told by sources close to the case that LE removed them or asked to have them removed for sake of the investigation.

2) SW's parents were in Colorado since last Friday (they went home yesterday). AB had no idea they were in CO until the moving truck showed up in front of their house (I'm surprised but very glad she's not keeping tabs on their every move). She spent a lot of time talking about how big the moving truck was and that the truck's size indicated they were moving a lot out. In fact, they were moving out relatively little. I would have thought she'd know or at least asked questions to learn it's not unusual at all for Movers to use large trucks for small loads. Often they pick up things from several households before transporting them-- (and the people with the smaller loads may need to wait for weeks or longer to get their stuff, but I digress)

3) She reported I think on Tuesday that SW's family had "checked in" to the Carbon Valley Recreational Center in Frederick, speculating maybe they were staying there or there for a "respite visit". I suspect the reason they were there is because it was the site of SW's memorial service last Saturday. While staff may have been instructed not to talk about the service before hand (family/friends worked hard to keep it secret so it wouldn't turn into a press circus), I would think an experienced investigative reported could have sussed that info out after the fact. At the very least she could have discovered it's not a hotel and if anyone tried to stay there they probably would have be arrested.

These are just three examples--there are several more that I know of.

I'm not saying AB or her show are bogus -- there's a lot of good information there and I'm very glad she's focusing on this case. But sometimes she states things as fact that are really speculation--and in some cases I think she could have avoided a mistake if she had bothered to dig deeper.

I'm completely aware it's not just AB. I've been startled by how often press in general has reported inaccurate information on this case . It's a bit disconcerting and I'm starting to view "the news" with a grain of salt.

THIS is why we are so grateful to have you as a VI- and why SW is so very fortunate to have you as a friend. You are doing an amazing job pointing out the inconsistencies and untruths being reported to us. Thank you!

 

[borndem]

Yes, however there are a few problems with that defense.

One, he said she was 'in the process of actively strangling ' the 2nd child. So that means that his child was still likely to be able to be saved ---IF HE HAD CALLED FOR HELP.

But instead of getting help for his child, he made the priority to be the strangling of his pregnant wife. He could have just knocked her off the child and tried to help the baby and scream as loud as he could for help, and he could have pressed the panic button the the alarm. But he wasted 5 or 6 minutes or more, strangling his wife and killing his unborn son.

I hope there are a lot of parents on the jury. Because I think they will all agree that saving the children would be their first priority, over strangling their spouse. If he had hit her over the head to stop her, and then began CPR and called 911, then no one would have an issue with him killing his wife, imo. Because his intent was to save his child.

But his admission, that he strangled his wife, shows us that stopping her from the attack was not the main intention. There are plenty of quicker ways he could have done that, that were not automatically lethal and did not take up so much precious time, while he could have been helping the baby.

Yes, and yes. He will never get past that -- as many have agreed -- just stop her, take her by the shoulders and push her on the floor or out the door, or punch her in the face -- anything. That part of his alibi will stick to him like glue. Surely he could have come up with something better -- he had a lot of time before LE spoke with him. No call to 911? Idiot.

 

[mickey2942]

He’s a total failure. Barely a day of freedom. If he thought SW was bossy, you have to wonder what he thinks of the prison guards.

Prison guards are unique individuals, spending their days with dregs of society. They are not at all impressed with prisoners, and don't put out a lot of hospitality. They are not kind, gentle souls, there to help the prisoners with understanding and respect. I rate them slightly better than who they are supervising. And find most of them relish the control.

 

[Jennifer17]

OK. But if the defense’s position is that she killed the girls, IMO they will most likely “go there.” They will have to attempt to show why she would do this.

And how, in your opinion will they attempt to show why she would do this? There is no evidence of a mentally ill woman on those SM vids.

 

[pocketaccent]

As there will be in-depth analysis of SW’s character and potential psychological issues. JMO

Then CW will have to take the stand and say bad things about SW in hopes jurors will buy it. Maybe then the defense could call upon their psychologist to back up CW's claim. I'm not sure.

 

[Sark06]

I understand. I guess my point was that at least CW is being portrayed negatively based on the facts that he has provided.

Rather than Shanann, whose negative portrayal seems based on wild speculation and interpretation of SM posts.
jmo

I relate to her because she's (was) a fighter, against the odds she conceived with fertility problems, she worked so she could enjoy family time, was strong and confident.... I also relate to her because I am bossy and a bit of an organiser (control freak)

My partner would probably tell you he can't do right for doing wrong and that I treat him like one of the children, he would relate to the portrayal of CW as a laid back dad/ husband with a naggy wife

 

[tmar]

Thank you PommyMommy.
I thought it a very powerful move by Susan Wright re-enacting the brutality of the murder of KS's husband, absolutely shocking scene but very effective! The re-enactment of OP battering the bathroom door after shooting Reeva dead, I remember well.

I'd like to add this video of Henri Van Breda re-enacting an event that never happened, he conjured up an 'intruder' and played out for the courtroom a tussle with an axe. It was embarrassing to watch.

I imagine CW will be in the same predicament with trying to re-enact the attack on SW that never happen like he said. I believe he killed SW in their bed after they spoke to one another or while she slept. JMO

We all 'saw through' the van Breda re-enactment.
If CW presents his 'so called re-enactment' of SW trying to murder her little girl, again, we will see through this. MOO.
Also, there was absolutely no 'victim bashing' on that thread: there being several adult victims involved.

 

[ZsaZsa]

We first have to establish the difference between victim blamers and just straight schizophrenic trolls that are malicious posters on some posting platforms.

Now I'm not talking about this case persay. But I am some times bewildered by some posts I see throughout the internet. And you never know if the comment is made by an adult or 8 year old child thats enjoying free uncensored posting on the Internet. Lol.

We first have to establish the difference between victim blamers and just straight schizophrenic trolls that are malicious posters on some posting platforms.

Now I'm not talking about this case persay. But I am some times bewildered by some posts I see throughout the internet. And you never know if the comment is made by an adult or 8 year old child thats enjoying free uncensored posting on the Internet. Lol.

They are easily recognized. They all use the same very obvious methods.

 

[Johnny1181]

Then CW will have to take the stand and say bad things about SW in hopes jurors will buy it. Maybe then the defense could call upon their psychologist to back up CW's claim. I'm not sure.

I agree with the sentiment but in the Casey Anthony case she didn't have to take the stand to make the accusations made against her father. Her attorneys merely had to state them. At least he was alive to take the stand and defend himself.

I dread the scenario where we will have to watch the defense try to drag poor Shanann through the mud in attempt to get CW off.

imo

 

[katydid23]

OK. But if the defense’s position is that she killed the girls, IMO they will most likely “go there.” They will have to attempt to show why she would do this.

But they have to get the judge to allow their 'evidence' into the jury's consideration. If they want to tell the jury that SW had psychological issues, they will need REAL EVIDENCE to offer. None of the tapes I have seen show any psychological maladies.

If they want the jury to believe that she took the girls to the doctors needlessly, and she lied about her own illnesses, they will need formal medical records which prove these claims. They cant use SM posts or FB videos such as the ones we have seen to try and show this.

I don't think the defense will be able to 'go there' because there is no evidence that there is a 'there there.' JMO

 

[Layla123]

@gitana1 Hi Gitana, or any other Attorney, I think I know a lot about this case, but at the same time, I am aware that everything I think I know is subject to change, once all of the evidence is revealed at the trial. I think I’d be an impartial and fair juror, I’d be perfectly capable of throwing away what I thought I knew, once more truthful and accurate evidence came forth at the trial. Aren’t most people capable of the same thing? What proof is there that jurors who know nothing about a case make better jurors? I would think the prosecution and the Defense would be better off if jurors actually knew the facts coming into a case, like COD, rather than having their heads filled with speculation they’ve garnered off the media.

 

[Johnny1181]

I relate to her because she's (was) a fighter, against the odds she conceived with fertility problems, she worked so she could enjoy family time, was strong and confident.... I also relate to her because I am bossy and a bit of an organiser (control freak)

My partner would probably tell you he can't do right for doing wrong and that I treat him like one of the children, he would relate to the portrayal of CW as a laid back dad/ husband with a naggy wife

I understand and I hear you.

But in this case I choose to judge the portrayal of CW that he showed me, not a portrayal I glean from a selection of Shanann's SM posts.
imo

Edited to replace "relate" with "judge". Poor wording choice. I clearly do not relate on any level with CW.

jmo

 

[Colorado303]

@Colorado303
Hi Hope you don't mind me asking.
Do you happen to remember if the garage has a 'keypad' anywhere on the outside? Or was there just a 'sensor'?
Thank you

Keypad on the outside

 

[MassGuy]

But they have to get the judge to allow their 'evidence' into the jury's consideration. If they want to tell the jury that SW had psychological issues, they will need REAL EVIDENCE to offer. None of the tapes I have seen show any psychological maladies.

If they want the jury to believe that she took the girls to the doctors needlessly, and she lied about her own illnesses, they will need formal medical records which prove these claims. They cant use SM posts or FB videos such as the ones we have seen to try and show this.

I don't think the defense will be able to 'go there' because there is no evidence that there is a 'there there.' JMO

Yeah. Wanting to present a defense like that is one thing, but it would be up to a judge to allow it in the first place.

 

[Sark06]

I understand and I hear you.

But in this case I choose to relate to the portrayal of CW that he showed me, not a portrayal I glean from a selection of Shanann's SM posts.
imo

That's great, I think, apart from you choosing to relate to him part has confused me but my original post wasn't about that, it was about public opinion and victim blaming, I was offering the suggestion that in Life our own personal experiences sway us when choosing sides in general not only relevant to SW and CW

 

[Alethea]

And how, in your opinion will they attempt to show why she would do this? There is no evidence of a mentally ill woman on those SM vids.

IMO we'll only hear about it in the opening and closing statements for the defense. CW will not testify and the defense will be careful not to open the door to allow all that much character evidence in. His attorneys will spin a story and present no evidence to support it and hope the jury falls for it.

 

[tmar]

Although at this time we have a great deal of evidence of one and no evidence at all of the other. We also have no way of knowing if potential psychological issues will be allowed in court. It seems to me they would need evidence to back that up. Jmo

At a recent trial (Rohde), the Judge prevented the Expert Witness, from continuing, in giving a Psychological Assessment, on the victim: as having 'no evidence', other than hear say etc.
Here, we have 'family videos', possibly promoting Thrive.

 

[Johnny1181]

That's great, I think, apart from you choosing to relate to him part has confused me but my original post wasn't about that, it was about public opinion and victim blaming, I was offering the suggestion that in Life our own personal experiences sway us when choosing sides in general not only relevant to SW and CW

I edited my post to replace "relate" with "judge". I clearly do not relate to CW in any way. And all of my judgements of him are based on the information that he provided about himself, what he showed us he is capable of, and the actions he took that prove it.
imo

 

[pocketaccent]

I agree with the sentiment but in the Casey Anthony case she didn't have to take the stand to make the accusations made against her father. Her attorneys merely had to state them. At least he was alive to take the stand and defend himself.

I dread the scenario where we will have to watch the defense try to drag poor Shanann through the mud in attempt to get CW off.

imo

BBM
Yes definitely. It's going to cause heartburn to many of us. Especially to her family.