Found Deceased CO - Shanann Watts (34), Celeste"Cece" (3) and Bella (4), Frederick, 13 Aug 2018 *CW GUILTY* #50

[Jupiter05]

I'm so embarrassed to ask; what time is the hearing on Monday? I'm working and popping in to check posts, don't have time to look it up now. Help?

10:00 A.M. MST

 

[gitana1]

To be fair looking at it like that then yes actually you make a good point, some have tried to explain. I just think sometimes it gets lost with the eye rolls and constant accusations of victim blaming.

I just hoped that now he's plead guilty and the speculation on any involvement on the part of Shanann has stopped, that people could discuss the case without past discussions being brought up. Case in point re your post:

"insinuations that imperfect Shanann was to blame seem to be being made."

You say "seem to be being", yet I've not seen this happen since the TOS were revised for this case. When I see this the original point gets lost on me, therefore I usually don't respond as I would like and for me halts the conversation.

Here's how I see it. When the same questions are asked over and over again in order to "understand why" and well thought out answers are given but discarded sort of as, "No, not that." "No. You can't make that statement. You're not qualified to do so." "No. That can't be the reason.", yet the same sort of questions continue to be asked in the same forum and no one new has suddenly arrived, it appears that some sort of point is being made.

It can be this. It can't be that. We can't say x or y or z because we are armchair diagnosing. So what's left? I think I know what's left.

I'm familiar with the Socratic method. It was used in law school sometimes to lead a student to a certain conclusion.

It is my sense that that could be what's happening here and the desired conclusion may lie with the victim and something about her rather than any of the other intelligent reasons given.

 

[Seattle1]

Here's how I see it. When the same questions are asked over and over again in order to "understand why" and well thought out answers are given but discarded sort of as, "No, not that." "No. You can't make that statement. You're not qualified to do so." "No. That can't be the reason.", yet the same sort of questions continue to be asked in the same forum and no one new has suddenly arrived, it appears that some sort of point is being made.

It can be this. It can't be that. We can't say x or y or z because we are armchair diagnosing. So what's left? I think I know what's left.

I'm familiar with the Socratic method. It was used in law school sometimes to lead a student to a certain conclusion.

It is my sense that that could be what's happening here and the desired conclusion may lie with the victim and something about her rather than any of the other intelligent reasons given.

This.. another 5 star!

 

[Asevario]

Question in regards to the "denied communication" claim. I am hoping one of our Verified Attorneys can answer, or any of you awesome super-sleuthers, really. I have scoured every resource I can think of and can't find the answer to this one.

Is it legally acceptable for the DP to tell Mom and Dad that CW wants no communication with them, or do they have to keep that under wraps? I mean like, flat out, "We are sorry Mr/Mrs. Watts, Chris has requested not to speak with you in regards to the case".

 

[Layla123]

Yup. It’s an attempt to regain control, even if it has no chance of success.

She can’t control her son’s decision to plea, but she can try.

She is attempting to influence public opinion, and she is certainly succeeding in that regard.

Just not in a good way, or the way she is intending.

I think Mrs. Watts thinks if she can convince enough people that her misunderstood little boy is a victim of an abusive wife and an incompetent public defender, she can make it all go away. She thinks she’s fighting. I thought it was very interesting when she said when Shanann first went missing she thought Shanann left and took the kids with her. She actually believed CW’s ridiculous story. I guess his father did, too. Something about this family. I can imagine CW thinking, “Well, my mom and dad believe my story, great, it works, so everyone else will.”

 

[NuttMegg]

I am so naive and sheltered, apparently. Why would a podcaster endeavor to erode confidence in the DA of Weld County, using Facebook reviews no less? Referencing episode 15, starting around minute 28:30 forward. This is in no way journalism, and I clearly understand why Websleuths only accepts specific types of media as sources.

But my question is earnest. Why attack the DA? I guess it is a question I may pose to the originators, but I was wondering if those more savvy here might have more insight.

Please delete if simply asking this question goes too far.

That was 2 stupid. Reading fb reviews to tar & feather the DA. I'm sure his feelings were hurt. Why DID he say the spotlight was on CW, must mean something sinister. I'm mad at myself for tuning in.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

Well, she did hear him plead guilty to all of it and that is what is she is saying. Nothing would be different.
I rather think that the interviews were not about claiming he was being treated unfairly, more that it was her chance to bash Shanann some more.

Even if he told her he killed all 3, planned it for weeks, she would tell him to fight and plead not guilty. She almost literally said that in one of the interviews,

 

[The Farm]

I personally still want to know (most likely never will) why SW's mom & sister did not attend their wedding.
CW at that point must not have been saying anything bad about SW as he was marrying her and she was the woman he loved.
So what did the mother and sister see or think that would make them not attend the wedding??
I understand from an above post that his Dad did go. Usually no matter how people feel above a new son-in-law or daughter-in-law they shut their mouths and still attend if that wedding moves forward.
I just find that extremely odd and want to think that something must have been very wrong right from the get go. JMO

 

[PommyMommy]

Here's how I see it. When the same questions are asked over and over again in order to "understand why" and well thought out answers are given but discarded sort of as, "No, not that." "No. You can't make that statement. You're not qualified to do so." "No. That can't be the reason.", yet the same sort of questions continue to be asked in the same forum and no one new has suddenly arrived, it appears that some sort of point is being made.

It can be this. It can't be that. We can't say x or y or z because we are armchair diagnosing. So what's left? I think I know what's left.

I'm familiar with the Socratic method. It was used in law school sometimes to lead a student to a certain conclusion.

It is my sense that that could be what's happening here and the desired conclusion may lie with the victim and something about her rather than any of the other intelligent reasons given.

Free Image on Pixabay - Amen, Message, Notice, Letters

 

[sun16]

Agreed. I suspect that CW will never tell the truth. But do you think he confidentially told his lawyers what happened that night with that being protected by attorney/client privilege? I have no idea! I always wonder how that works when you actually ARE guilty of the crime. For your lawyers to best defend you, it seems like the best way would be to be completely upfront with them. But if you admit to what really happened, can they present a defense that you didn't do it? Or just suggest alternatives to what happened to show reasonable doubt?

No, I highly doubt he was completely upfront with them. And that’s not how it goes.

 

[Jennifer17]

I personally still want to know (most likely never will) why SW's mom & sister did not attend their wedding.
CW at that point must not have been saying anything bad about SW as he was marrying her and she was the woman he loved.
So what did the mother and sister see or think that would make them not attend the wedding??
I understand from an above post that his Dad did go. Usually no matter how people feel above a new son-in-law or daughter-in-law they shut their mouths and still attend if that wedding moves forward.
I just find that extremely odd and want to think that something must have been very wrong right from the get go. JMO

In their eyes. She said nothing that she could do was right for SW.
I contend attending the wedding may have helped that.

 

[BeckyF]

Okay, since Cindy claims that her son's defense attorneys have coerced him into this guilty plea and they refused to allow him to have any contact with his parents, according to Cindy,

Do a Google search for Murder rap sesh.

Thank you!

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

Please continue the discussion here.

And please call in to @Tricia's podcast tonight! It starts in about 20 minutes.

Listened to the podcast this morning, great discussion. You are fantastic, I am learning so much, beginning with I am not nearly as smart as I thought I was, lol. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

 

[sun16]

I do wonder what CW’ sister thinks of all of this, I understand we are not allowed to sleuth family, especially as she has kept out of the spotlight, let’s hope she is the normal, emotionally stable member of his family and talks some sense into her parents (mom specifically).

No idea if she is normal, stable, etc. But is not helping things.

 

[scdiv]

That was 2 stupid. Reading fb reviews to tar & feather the DA. I'm sure his feelings were hurt. Why DID he say the spotlight was on CW, must mean something sinister. I'm mad at myself for tuning in.

So stupid. I'm thinking this DA has pretty thick skin. And is pretty used to dealing with criminals, crackpots, and crazies, and their rabid fan clubs. I can't believe I listened to any of this either. I feel like I need a shower.

 

[Layla123]

I personally still want to know (most likely never will) why SW's mom & sister did not attend their wedding.
CW at that point must not have been saying anything bad about SW as he was marrying her and she was the woman he loved.
So what did the mother and sister see or think that would make them not attend the wedding??
I understand from an above post that his Dad did go. Usually no matter how people feel above a new son-in-law or daughter-in-law they shut their mouths and still attend if that wedding moves forward.
I just find that extremely odd and want to think that something must have been very wrong right from the get go. JMO

I agree. I think his mother’s lack of blessings for the marriage made it easier for CW to rationalize justifications for committing adultery. He could always run to mommy. Mommy would agree, Shanann was a bad, bad woman.

 

[MollyDDD]

So true. I never saw a plea deal coming, and quickly disregarded the notion that one was coming.

I was glad to be proven wrong in this regard.

It’s great that his defense team was able to get CW to see the writing on the wall.

They’ve been solid from the beginning, which everyone on here was actually in agreement on.

I think the details we are going to learn about in the autopsy reports are the reason he pleaded guilty.

Well, she did hear him plead guilty to all of it and that is what is she is saying. Nothing would be different.
I rather think that the interviews were not about claiming he was being treated unfairly, more that it was her chance to bash Shanann some more.

And in reality all she is really doing is torturing the family, and pouring salt in the wound, sort of speak. That’s just pure vindictiveness on her part. She believes this is all SW’s fault and is still angry with her. The woman needs some serious counseling. IMO

 

[scdiv]

No, I highly doubt he was completely upfront with them. And that’s not how it goes.

I doubt he was upfront. And I legit have no idea how it goes!

 

[gitana1]

Question in regards to the "denied communication" claim. I am hoping one of our Verified Attorneys can answer, or any of you awesome super-sleuthers, really. I have scoured every resource I can think of and can't find the answer to this one.

Is it legally acceptable for the DP to tell Mom and Dad that CW wants no communication with them, or do they have to keep that under wraps? I mean like, flat out, "We are sorry Mr/Mrs. Watts, Chris has requested not to speak with you in regards to the case".

If he tells them they can state that then they can. Otherwise they really should say nothing.

 

[NuttMegg]

So stupid. I'm thinking this DA has pretty thick skin. And is pretty used to dealing with criminals, crackpots, and crazies, and their rabid fan clubs. I can't believe I listened to any of this either. I feel like I need a shower.

I think the 2 gals were a little stunned (speechless ) when their buddy said in her opinion SW must have really been beat up. There was not a bit of snark in that comment, nothing to blame sw. That's one thing that surprised me. Maybe she is not as clueless or as biased as they are.