Fresh Hell in Frederick - Shanann Watts

[MrPrena]

[Irving]

I don't think it was premeditated. It makes zero difference at this point. There is movie with a similar plot. I think it's called The Square if I remember correctly.

[Irving]

None of the steps you used as an example had to have happened before any killing.

[TRnCO]

I think foxtrot is right on track. He took the time to put on gloves. That is NOT a snap decision. I also think he had thought out where to dispose of the bodies.

He's an obvious liar. Stood right in front of camera's and lied from the get go.

IMO, he's a killer of three innocents.

[Skip]

Investigators take:

[snip]

Well thought out/said.

When I saw the news yesterday (and quickly posted) I thought back to your earlier post. None of his behavior adds up with the newly released reason for the DNA test. The first rational thought a parent would have is as you laid out. No parent would think about hiding the bodies (unless he was the murderer).

There does seem to be a kind of person who thinks this is a solution (complex?).

[Zundfolge]

Premeditated simply means planned.

And the threshold for what constitutes "planned" is pretty low. For example if you're in an argument with your boss while you're routinely CCWing and you draw your gun and shoot him in the heat of the argument, you can make the argument that it wasn't "premeditated". But if you go out to your car, get a gun and come back in and shoot him, that's enough planning to count as "premeditated".

I'd argue that this guy did enough "heavy thought" to get premeditated to stick even if he decided to murder them only minutes before he did it (although I suspect he'd planned it days in advance).

[Martinjmpr]

And the threshold for what constitutes "planned" is pretty low. For example if you're in an argument with your boss while you're routinely CCWing and you draw your gun and shoot him in the heat of the argument, you can make the argument that it wasn't "premeditated". But if you go out to your car, get a gun and come back in and shoot him, that's enough planning to count as "premeditated".

I'd argue that this guy did enough "heavy thought" to get premeditated to stick even if he decided to murder them only minutes before he did it (although I suspect he'd planned it days in advance).

That's correct. There's also the legal issue of "what do we KNOW?" vs. "what can we PROVE?"

From a legal standpoint, the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is simply that in a 2nd degree murder charge, pre-meditation is not an "element of the crime" that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are lots of murders that are prosecuted as 2nd degree murder where it's pretty clear there was likely some premeditation involved, simply because the prosecutor decided it would be more difficult to get a 1st degree conviction since it would be difficult or contentious to prove "pre-meditation."

By reducing the charge from 1st to 2nd, the issue of pre-meditation simply drops off the table as that doesn't have to be proven as an element of the crime in order to convict.

And in states without the death penalty (or in states like CO which technically has a death penalty but it isn't used) there is often very little practical difference in sentencing between 1st and 2nd degree anyway, so why risk losing a trial over a difference that ultimately isn't going to matter when it comes to sentencing?

Guy's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, does it really matter if the sentence is 1st or 2nd degree?

[Skip]

[snip]

And in states without the death penalty (or in states like CO which technically has a death penalty but it isn't used) there is often very little practical difference in sentencing between 1st and 2nd degree anyway, so why risk losing a trial over a difference that ultimately isn't going to matter when it comes to sentencing?

Guy's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, does it really matter if the sentence is 1st or 2nd degree?

Good point, and not to sidetrack, but I wonder what will happen. All the PC narratives say it should be fine to execute this POS (he isn't protected by identity status AFAIK).

Homes didn't get it. Can't put Dunlap in the ground. Does a CO DA/jury have the stones to end him after murdering three innocent people in cold blood so he could be with his side piece? And if they don't, what does that say about our state?

---

Pregnant mom's murder ignites debate over Colorado laws involving unborn children

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...nborn-children

Did they mean fetuses?

“Colorado requires that the child live outside of the mother’s womb independently and then be killed as a result of something that occurs then," said Garnett.

There are 40 year olds who can't live independently of their mothers. I think this should be revisited.

For the children.

[Martinjmpr]

Good point, and not to sidetrack, but I wonder what will happen. All the PC narratives say it should be fine to execute this POS (he isn't protected by identity status AFAIK).

Homes didn't get it. Can't put Dunlap in the ground. Does a CO DA/jury have the stones to end him after murdering three innocent people in cold blood so he could be with his side piece? And if they don't, what does that say about our state?

Assuming he's charged with 1st degree murder, the prosecutor can certainly ASK for a death sentence, but whether he is actually sentenced to death is up to a jury, which has to find in favor of the death penalty unanimously.

Or to put it another way, his lawyer only has to find ONE juror that is squeamish about the death penalty in order to keep it from being imposed.

Which means that for all practical purposes, there is no death penalty in CO and given that capital cases are longer and much more expensive for the judicial district, it doesn't make sense for a prosecutor to ask for a death sentence unless he thinks he might lose his job if he doesn't which seems unlikely in this case.

In the case of Holmes, then yes, that DA would likely have faced political repercussions if he HADN'T asked for the death penalty, but I would argue that was a very special and unique case.

[Irving]

Well thought out/said.
The first rational thought a parent would have is as you laid out. No parent would think about hiding the bodies (unless he was the murderer).

I disagree with this. Not trying to defend the guy, but I have, and think we all have, seen people first hand do strange things in a moment of panic.

I must have missed something about gloves, I've pretty much been getting my info from here. Was him wearing gloves part of his confession, or is this just an assumption that he was wearing gloves?

As to the reference to the movie, it is the same formula for every disaster movie where someone makes an initial bad decision, then keeps adding increasingly poor decisions to try and recover, but ultimately sealing their own demise.