Return to Transcripts main page

CRIME AND JUSTICE WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Brand New Explosive Court Documents Released; Cheating Hubby Kills Family, Goes On TV. Aired 6-8p ET

Aired September 12, 2018 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His story is, they died at the hands of their mother, and that had to be after 2:00 a.m. Monday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Within the stomach itself, that moment is frozen in time, time is of the essence here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tonight, big new possibilities in the case of the Colorado family man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is a cheater.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Accused of murdering his pregnant wife and daughters.

CHRISTIAN WATTS, HUSBAND OF SHANANN WATTS, SUSPECT: We had an emotional conversation, but I`ll leave it at that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there evidence their deaths were premeditated.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Computers and phones and vetting and evidence tying Watts to both crime scenes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bed sheet matched a set found in Chris Watts` trash can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the origins of these hairs in the truck?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And was there actually a different plan for getting rid of the bodies?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a man who may have severe emotional issues and he wanted to be completely unencumbered and that would take some

planning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE SHOW GUEST HOST: Good evening, I`m Jean Casarez in for Ashleigh Banfield. Thank you so much for joining

us. This is "Crime and Justice." It`s a case of Chris Watts and its coming down to he said, she said. Or rather, he said, they said. With

Chris saying his wife killed both their daughters. And the police saying Chris killed all three of them. Police say he dumped their

bodies at his worksite before telling everyone his family was simply missing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATTS: She wasn`t here, the kids weren`t here, and nobody was here. I could not kiss them to bed tonight, it was -- I -- that is why I left,

and it was horrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: But now, the details from both crime scenes are starting to emerge, and according to explosive reporting from people magazine there

might just be evidence that Chris killed his little girls as well as his wife Shanann, and had it all planned out in advance.

My panel is with me, but I do want to start with Crime and journalist Pat Lalama. Pat, we have just gotten some brand new documents from the

court. And we don`t get them very often.

PAT LALAMA, GUEST HOST, HLN CRIME AND JUSTICE: I know.

CASAREZ: They are riveting in nature, in the fact that number one the defense is asking that the prosecutor`s office launch an investigation

into what they say are leaks from the prosecutor`s office. So we`re saying leaks, what are the leaks, well, "People" magazine has just come

out with riveting reporting.

LALAMA: Right.

CASAREZ: And sources they say that are close to the case. What is "People" magazine saying that it looks like the defense is having such

an issue with?

LALAMA: Well, there`s a lot of evidentiary information as you know, the story about hundreds of hairs being found inside Chris Watts` truck,

which is going to be significant one way or the other. Talking about we believe more and more that this was premeditated.

But here`s the thing, Jean. If I got the documents too, and I was zipping through them, about 30 seconds before air time. I`m gleaning

some that that, that the leaks look more -- at least from the prosecutor`s perspective, the leaks are not from them, if there are

leaks, they acknowledge that -- somebody`s acknowledging they could come from the police department which begs the question, then who the heck is

going to pay for any investigation. And I think that is where they`re at a log jam right now, where are the leaks coming from, and who`s

responsible for finding that out.

CASAREZ: And the prosecutors actually say that in the response, saying, who`s going to pay for all of this. But People magazine says, Pat

Lalama, you can go into this, is that, there is evidence that there was premeditation for the deaths or murders of these three people.

LALAMA: Well, you know, that is a rather and you know this, a lawyer Jean vague statement. I mean, what are the specifics, he told someone a

week before? Hey, I`m getting rid of my family? Or is there some evidence on a computer. Is there evidence in a text message? Because

shockingly, he didn`t, according to these leaks of "People" magazine, didn`t delete anything. So, I think it`s safe to say the police know a

lot of things we don`t know. That the D.A. and prosecutors or prosecutors and defense know things we don`t know that is leaning in

making them lean in that direction.

CASAREZ: Tom Verni, you are a former NYPD detective law enforcement consultant and there is a lot of information here that if you put this

together, really paves a story. First of all, he is charged right now, with first degree murder. Not second degree, not manslaughter, but

first degree murder which includes that premeditated murder.

The source that is cited in the People magazine article saying there has been so much evidence collected to date, including computers, all

electronic devices, and that text messages and searches were not deleted. What does that tell you?

[18:05:14] TOM VERNI, FORMER DETECTIVE, NEW YORK POLICE: Well, either that he was very sloppy in what he was doing, you know, it`s great that

they actually have so much overwhelming evidence, because here you have someone who -- this whole case is disgusting to me, it`s -- I feel so

awful for the family, and my condolences to the family, these pour young children and his lovely wife.

I mean, we have a troubled individual. Saying that he snapped, I mean, clearly snapped, but he clearly took steps to go about this in a very

methodical manner, based on what we know already. And all the facts in evidence that haven`t come out yet. Basically what we know, he went and

killed them and then brought them to a different. You know, location to hide them. So, that in part itself is just digging himself even deeper

than this hole that he dig.

CASAREZ: Prosecutors will mostly likely say he didn`t snap, he was methodical. He premeditated this, and when you think about computer

searches and you think about -- Casey Anthony comes to mind. There were searches for chloroform, right? That were founded very high levels in

the trunk of that car. I mean, the searches, can they show police which then goes to prosecutor`s premeditation?

VERNI: Well, yes, anything that he did, whether -- again the previous whether it was text messages, or some sort what he did online search on

you know, how to kill somebody. And what to buy, when you kill somebody, if he went to home depot and bought tape -- duct tape and

straps and shovel and lime, I mean, there`s a lot of different pieces of this puzzle that are being put together by investigators already. And I

don`t think they`re even at the bottom of the facts and evidence that they are getting. That is on top of all the forensic evidence that they

have very got on him in regards to this case.

CASAREZ: Eric Johnson, defense attorney joining us tonight. I want to ask you, this is a really novel move by the defense, to call for and ask

for an investigation into where the leaks are. Because virtually there haven`t been leaks, I mean, there`s so much information that we don`t

know, but this is the first window through that "People" magazine article to show exactly that they may have evidence of that

premeditation of three separate murders. How much success will they have in asking for an investigation of where the leaks are?

ERIC JOHNSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it is going to be very important in this matter, because of exactly what we were talking about

here. We have a situation where they`re saying there`s premeditation, however, they`re based on entirely assumptions. We don`t know what is

in his e-mails. We don`t know what is in his texts. And it could be situations that those things may evidences infidelity, which is the

state has been trying to use as a reason that he may commit those crimes. However, that maybe something else and that does not dispute

his allegations that he may have snapped.

So, by this information getting out, that does in some way possibly contaminate the jury and them thinking this was premeditation. And to

go against is possibility of his business as being something -- where there`s was a heat of passion.

CASAREZ: You know, Chris, one of the bigger challenges potentially for this defendant in a short term are all of the interviews he did. He did

three different media interviews. And he really painted his defense. I mean, it puts him in a corner, because he has said what the defense is

going to be. That was actually in the affidavit, but in the interviews that he did, we want to show everyone, this is from KUSA. And we

haven`t heard this before. This is brand new that he said to an affiliate there in the Denver area, but he said, in regard to the

backyard. He said, were all the doors around the house locked? That is the reporter, he said, well, the front doors were locked. Watts says,

the garage door was unlocked, but that is normal, for when she comes into the house and she leaves it unlocked. But the back door, sliding

door, well, that was locked as well.

So, then the reporter says, well, how would she have left the house? Because remember, Watts said she was gone, she was missing. So this is

right there in the beginning. How would she have left the house if she did leave the house? Then Watts says, and try to keep up with this, I

don`t want to put anything out there, like suspecting if somebody pulled her in the back because we have a drive way back there from the new

townhomes, but it`s so hard to tell, there`s no cameras in the backyard or anything like that, so it`s really hard to even suspect anything

right now as far as how she could have left or if someone came and picked her up or someone took her. What? That is the affiliate KUSA.

It`s not an affiliate, it is KUSA television. But we are reading that, they are allowing us to do that. I want to ask, right here, Tom. I

mean, he went into all of this, is he trying to paint at that point an abduction?

[18:10:04] TOM VERNI, FORMER DETECTIVE, NEW YORK POLICE: Well, it sure sounds like it, I mean, again, everything that has come out since then

is kind of -- everything comes back to him. That is actually the fact that he said the he did it. So, just at face value, we`re talking about

a guy who admitted that he killed his wife. So it`s just -- everything so far circumstantial evidence and even the forensic evidence is coming

back to him, there`s no one else that would be involved in this, as far as we can tell. And there`s no reason anyone else would be involved in

this, other than him.

CASAREZ: Right. So, let`s listen to his own voice right now, all right. He talks about, if somebody has her, and this is an interview he did

with a local affiliate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think she survived?

WATTS: I mean, right now, I don`t even want to just like throw anything out there like -- I hope that she is somewhere safe right now, and with

the kids, but I mean, could she have just taken off? I don`t know, but if somebody has her and they`re not safe, like I want them back now, if

they are safe, they`re coming back, but if they`re not, this has got to stop, like somebody has to come forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: All right, Eric Johnson, as a defense attorney, this is very difficult when this stuff can come into the courtroom during trial.

Because it`s a statement against his interest when it comes out that he actually said that they didn`t go anywhere. No one abduct here, she

didn`t go missing, but he snapped after he saw she was killing the children.

JOHNSON: Yes. Well, if look at it, I mean you have two separate things that you have to look at. The commission of the major crime of murder

and the action that he took to cover it up. So, therefore, because there was a crime committed, the fact that he may have taken some acts

to cover it up, does not polls to the question of whether or not this is first degree murder as he is going to be charge. Or second degree

murder as he is claiming, based on his assertion that he snapped. So, the fact is, that we do know that she is dead and that he may -- it`s

easy for the state to tie into the fact that he may be involved with the cover-up, and the cover-up itself shows and possibly disproves the

premeditation for multiple factors.

One, his statement and the fact that he does not have what is perceived to be a rehearsed answer to the cops. He is speculating, he is throwing

things out there. He is very unsure of himself. Also, the fact that her personal information were recovered. If this was a premeditated

information. He would have done something with her purse, he would have done something with her credit cards, and he would have done something

with her telephone.

And also, the fact that this was done at his job would be the first place that they would look, shows that there was not a high deal of

planning. So the mother was found simply buried and kids because they were found in oil drums. So that is something he conveniently disposed

of in a location that he thought the people would not reach, it does not show a high degree of premeditation, and does not disprove his position.

CASAREZ: Well, I know we have to separate out the alleged murder from the covering up and the tampering with a corpse. Pat Lalama, your

thoughts?

LALAMA: OK, your guest makes great points. There is no doubt that you know, going back to the police issue, leaking prejudice and defend at

the right due process, but it`s not up to me to convict this guy, but everything that he says when he opens his mouth is painting himself.

You talk about painting a kidnapping, I think he is painting himself into a corner. He is not that bright, sir. He is not that bright. He

thinks he is bright. He is one of those guys that says, I can talk my way out of this, you know, I`m good looking, I`m this family man, he

thinks. He is like Scott Peterson, he is like Drew Peterson, like, Casey Anthony. He thinks he got that thing that he can ramble on and

make some sense. And he is not that bright and I venture to guess that maybe he is a little off his rocker.

JOHNSON: Was then also say to say by your claimed of him having lack of higher intelligence that would also disprove the premeditation in this

point. If you ask somebody --

LALAMA: Not necessarily, dumb people premeditate all the time. Sorry, I mean, I don`t think it takes intelligence -- in fact, most idiots get

caught when they premeditate you know, a murder. But it doesn`t make sense to me that he just, oh, I just snapped. Here`s a man with a

history of financial problems, he is a cheater, and he allegedly had some sort of sexual identity issues. I mean, I`m not a psychologist,

but I think we are going to find it. This man as I said before and I will say it until the cows come home, he wanted to be unencumbered. He

didn`t want any responsibilities and like Scott Peterson in my mind decided I`m just going to throw the baby -- that is a bad pun. I`m just

going to just get rid of them all so I don`t have to think about it.

CASAREZ: but he did do three interviews. He was searching for his wife.

LALAMA: Yes, because he is stupid.

CASAREZ: He said that in a straight face.

LALAMA: He is stupid.

CASAREZ: The fact is, like 24 hours after this interview, he is going to confess that they didn`t go anywhere, that they were all in the house.

And yes, he gives a story that may or may not be true, we don`t know, we got the presumption of innocence at this point, there will be a defense.

[18:15:12] LALAMA: True.

CASAREZ: But the fact is, once the trial gets going all of this can be played for the jury, and it shows someone isn`t telling the truth right

there.

LALAMA: Exactly my point.

JOHNSON: But in every crime, you have very few immediate confessions, so therefore the fact that there was an attempted cover-up. The fact

that there was a lie that was told is normally regular criminal behavior in these circumstances. Nobody really confesses at the first time so

therefore --

LALAMA: My friend. My friend. Excuse me, my wife was killing the babies, I saw it in the monitor, that is like he is thinking far ahead

enough to figure, OK, I`m not going to get away with she just disappeared. So, OK, let me think, oh, yes, I saw my children being

killed, that is a good one, I mean, and he is no rocket scientist. OK?

CASAREZ: All right. We are going to continue this after the break, but what Pat was saying, he was very detailed in what he told police on that

Wednesday 24 hours after those interviews right there.

All right. After the break, Chris Watts has only made one court appearance so far. But what will it be like to try and defend him. And

what are the challenges for his attorneys in such a high profile case. Believe it or not. We have an attorney with us tonight. Kirk Nurmi,

you know him, Jodi Arias` lead defense attorney about what Chris Watts` defense team can expect. That is next.

[18:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATTS: I don`t know where my kids are, where Shanann is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It came to her mind that he could be cheating.

WATTS: If someone has her, please bring her back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s one key detail that police say Watts left out. That he had been having extramarital affair with a coworker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I always wondered why he was so quiet.

WATTS: This house is not complete without anybody here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: When we first met Chris Watts, he was a handsome young father worried about his family`s whereabouts. And he seemed like the perfect

dad, in all of the pictures, the videos, his loving wife posted on Facebook, but police say Chris Watts is a cheater and a killer, willing

to murder his own family, hide their bodies and lie about it. And now, the whole country knows that side of the story.

So how hard is it going to be to defend the two faced dad, who allegedly killed his own kids? Joining us tonight, Defense Attorney, Kirk Nurmi.

He has come full circle form his time as a public defender for Jodi Arias. So he knows what it`s like to defend the indefensible, even a

client he doesn`t like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRK NURMI, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR JODI ARIAS: It`s not even about whether or not you like Jodi Arias. Nine days out of ten, I don`t like Jodi

Arias.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: He is also the author of trapped with Miss Arias. That is a booked you`ve got to read. And the more we look at the Chris Watts`

case, the more that we really have so many questions and it so great to have you on tonight. You know, Kirk, I was in that courtroom for all

those months with Jodi Arias, I watch you and it was just a tremendous defense that you gave her. Tremendous defense work, and you saved her

life obviously there was a conviction of premeditated first degree murder, but did saved her life. And it was great to watch you at work

all those months.

Here`s what I want to ask you, you know, right now, with the Watts case, there`s a lot of silence. We`re not hearing a lot. I mean, finally a

couple motions were actually available to look at tonight. Really just procedurally, you know, wanting an investigation on leaks and the

judge`s is also saying that all the court documents and filings will be suppressed. Unless you get a court order. Which is sort of in essence,

that they are sealed. But what is going on behind the scenes right now? What is the public defender and the prosecutor doing?

NURMI: Well, first of all, thank you for your kind words, Jean, it`s great to be back with you. You know, I think, from the defense

perspective anyway, and to some degree from the prosecutor`s perspective, it`s like having a hand grenade thrown in your lap. You`re

really trying to get a sense of what is going on, trying to assess the situation and diffuse it as best you can in the immediate short term.

CASAREZ: So, as a public defender, you were assigned Jodi Arias. The defense attorney here, has been assigned Chris Watts, can you refused a

case when you`re a public defender? You know, I just, I don`t want to do that one, but you have to do it.

NURMI: Well, you pretty much have to do it. I mean, I think my suspicion is that given that there are two attorneys assigned to this

case, that it`s very possible this is going to be a death penalty case, which is the situation I was in the capital as a public defender office,

so, there`s no good cases, there`s no good choices, and ultimately in a situation like this, you are kind of assigned the case, it is your duty,

and in my situation, of course, I was ordered by the court to retain the case even when I left the public defender`s office.

[18:25:20] CASAREZ: You know, one of the similarities I see with this case even early on as it is and with Jodi`s case is that the public

sentiment out here, what you hear people talking about, there are not two sides to this case, you do not hear anything about the defense even

believing in the defense, whatever it may be, it is all for the victims. Because three beautiful people lost their lives. How hard is it to

defend a case when not only the country is watching, but the public sentiment is 100 percent with the victim?

NURMI: Well, the sympathy for the victim is understood. And as a matter of fact, myself as an attorney, and other attorneys, they

probably have that same sympathy for the victim as well, but this is a situation in which we have a constitutional democracy, and we have

decided that everybody gets sixth amendment rights. Not just people we like. Not just people that do crimes that don`t offend us to the degree

that this crime offense us.

So, to answer your question, they have that sympathy, but they have a job to do, to detach themselves from the crime itself, and focus on

actualizing those rights that he is due via the sixth amendment and potentially save his life should the state of Colorado decide to seek

the death penalty in this case, which as I said earlier, I believe they will.

CASAREZ: Another similarity I see is that Jodi had three different scenarios of what happened to her. One being she wasn`t at Travis`

home. And the other that there were mass burglars that came in and committed the crime, murdering Travis and third, that she was there, but

it was self-defense. Here in this case, he has also painted himself into a corner, because he has been so specific in saying that he saw one

of his babies` blue, and she was strangling the other baby, and he snapped and he strangled her. How difficult is it for the defense, when

you -- from the very beginning you`re really put in that corner of what your defense is going to be?

NURMI: Right. You`re behind the eight ball right away, but ultimately, if the case were to go to trial. Which I`m sure the public defenders

are hoping it won`t. He determines what that ultimate defense is going to be and he can offer an explanation for why he said the things he

said. And of course, I think, what we`re seeing here, Jean, is just the tip of the iceberg, because while we`ve seen these interviews and

everything else, my suspicion is, there`s hours of interrogation footage, and like your guests earlier saying, there`s going to be phone

records and e-mails and things like that, that he is going to be asked about that we`re not privy too at this moment in time. That are going

to lengthen that interrogation, and so you`re going to have a lot of Mr. Watts on tape if he was foolish enough, I guess, from a criminal defense

perspective to keep talking.

CASAREZ: Right, I remember with Jodi Arias, they had quite a case of premeditation. I mean, it took days to look at what she did, as she

made her way to Arizona, all the steps she took, but you were then actually able on the defense side to really show the emotional abuse

that she went through. That she was someone that he didn`t consider the marriage type, but someone that he would talk to and get together with

at night. And really -- and this was evidence. It`s not a personal opinion, he disrespected her. He disrespected her in many different

ways. So, you were able to turn that around. Is what you`re saying, the defense here in Chris Watts will take whatever is given to them with

premeditation be able to build a case of maybe not an acquittal, but taking that murder down to maybe a type of heat of passion manslaughter?

NURMI: Well, I think that is exactly right, Jean. Because he has already confessed ultimately to killing his wife, to my understanding,

he said that, you know, he choked her in a fit of rage, et cetera, et cetera. So, what you`re having to do now, I guess is try to

substantiate his claim that it was indeed in a fit of rage, because the ultimate issue becomes that lesser included offense. So, any possible

death penalty verdict or verdict that could lead to the death penalty is avoided.

CASAREZ: I understand that you separate it out, you have a constitutional duty. That you client has constructional right, but you

got death threats during the time that you represented Jodi, is that right?

NURMI: I did. I got several, you know, I was -- I got to a point where in my office I was opening my mail with rubber gloves. It was a scary

time for myself and my entire defense team.

And that goes under this misunderstanding that the public defenders or any defense attorney necessarily believes their client, support what

they did or, you know, that sort of thing, instead of defending the rights that defend us all. And that`s why public defenders are probably

in that role.

CASAREZ: But that had to affect you. You know, I remember when I was reporting and I would come out and I would be on the air on court T.V.,

national audience, and I would give the side of the prosecution, I would give the side of the defense, that`s what I`m supposed to do, and social

media, a lot of people said, she`s on the side of the defense.

I didn`t have a stake in the matter, but as a journalist, I give both sides. That`s what I`m supposed to do. Did it affect you? I mean, you

said that it was a scary time.

NURMI: Oh, there`s no doubt about it. You know, I think about the length of this case as well. I mean, it was about two years of my life,

five years of my life, not including the exact trial time. But I believe the stress of that, the threats and dealing with everything that I dealt

with, was the reason cancer came into my life about four months after Miss Arias was finally sentenced in 2015.

CASAREZ: That`s right. And you have really made some changes in your life. I know you`re a motivational speaker. We want to talk to you about

that. We`re going to have more with you as we come back, and that`s ahead.

[18:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): Two little girls have reportedly been submerged in an oil well for days.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): A man grieving for his missing family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A husband and father who pleaded for the return of his missing wife and daughters has reportedly confessed to killing them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is absolutely the worst possible outcome.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I stuck around because he was the one for me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): Did this family man really turn into a family annihilator?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CASAREZ: We are still talking about the murder case that has the country on edge, trying to figure out whether Chris Watts really killed

his children along with his pregnant wife before police say he dumped all three of their bodies at his work site.

The more we find out about the possible evidence at both the home and the Watts girls` final resting place, there are more questions that we

have.

And joining us tonight, we have tremendous guests, but also, Kirk Nurmi is with us. Lead defense attorney, he was for Jodi Arias, and also has a

book that you want to get. You have become a motivational speaker and you have just changed your life. Is that because of defending Jodi Arias

or being a public defender that you made this metamorphosis? There is your book right there, "Trapped With Ms. Arias."

NURMI: Yeah, I think so. You know, I attribute the stress to doing the death penalty work as the reason I got cancer. In August, in the fall of

2015, when I was dealing with that diagnosis, I really went to a dark place and thought, do I really want to go through chemotherapy to

rebuild my life and rebuild my body?

And I decided that yeah, I did. But if I did, I want to do something else with my life. I didn`t want to live my remaining years the way I

had my first 49 years. So I made the decision to move into that. And now that I`m out of it, it`s a way to try to teach people the lessons that

I`ve learned from dealing with infamy and cancer.

CASAREZ: Wow! I think that`s fascinating. I know you`re going to be in Seattle in October, giving a motivational speech. I want to go to our

Facebook questions because we have viewers that absolutely are little investigators and they have tremendous questions.

Kimberly Hooks has an interesting question. Kimberly writes, if, I really mean if she did kill them. Does he get away with killing her? Is

it justified homicide?

To Eric Johnson, defense attorney, if the evidence comes out that she snapped -- she`s the one that snapped because he said that he wants a

separation, right? And she goes in and takes it out on the children -- But then he says that he snapped and he murdered her. I mean --

ERIC JOHNSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Based on the question.

CASAREZ: -- is that good for the defense?

JOHNSON: Well, based on the question, if he did -- if the mother did in fact kill them, it would not get him off, because the fact of the matter

would be, the children were already dead when he observed them.

[18:40:03] So he can`t say that he killed her trying to protect the children. But it may be something that would reduce the charge down from

first-degree murder to second-degree murder.

CASAREZ: Right. And we also know that premeditation can form in an instant. Right? It`s all the facts and the circumstances.

Tim Gallagher, medical examiner and forensic pathologist, you know, as you do autopsy and there were three of them here, you collect evidence,

you do so much analysis on the medical area, but when it comes to the perpetrator that actually committed the murder, is there anything

forensically that can help give you the clues to go to then the answers at some point?

TIM GALLAGHER, MEDICAL EXAMINER AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST (via telephone): That`s a good question, Jean. You know, during the autopsy,

we do observe injuries on the victim.

And if the person was indeed manually strangled, then we would have fingerprints or we would have evidence of finger impressions or finger

markings or finger damage on the neck, and we could size them generally, and then according to the size of the injury, include or eliminate some

people from the list of suspects.

CASAREZ: Very interesting. What about hairs or fibers on the body that correlate forensically with one person?

GALLAGHER (via telephone): Well, in this case, that would be a little difficult since the bodies were found, I believe, in an oil drum filled

with crude oil.

CASAREZ: Right.

GALLAGHER (via telephone): Any hair there may have been floated away or not collected with the body. But realistically if this was the father of

the children and they lived in the same house, then having the father`s hair on the children`s body would be something to be expected, you know,

and not something that would be questioned.

CASAREZ: Right. And maybe that oil actually allowed forensically things to stick to the bodies. Let`s go to another Facebook question from Vicky

Monett. Good question. Is it too late for Chris Watts to claim insanity?

Kirk Nurmi, as a defense attorney, when you are coming on board, is it important to get a psychological analysis of your client very close in

time to when this all happens?

NURMI: You bet, the sooner the better, because then the psychologist can most accurately assess their state of mind, what they were thinking

in their psychological state at that time, and then formulate a report and let the attorneys take it from there.

CASAREZ: So --

NURMI: That`s very crucial to have it happen right away.

CASAREZ: Right, exactly. But with all the interviews he did, 24 hours after that, that makes insanity a tough climb, doesn`t it? Even though

it`s at the moment that the killing is taking place, you`ve got -- because he seems like he knows right from wrong and knows that a crime

may have happened to his wife, she`s missing at this point, but it makes it challenging.

NURMI: It could make it challenging, certainly. But then we`re also talking about two different periods of time. We`re talking about when he

committed the crime and the post crime interview. So, there are two different levels of time that the psychologist will assess in making an

overall judgement regarding his mental stability.

CASAREZ: Right. And Facebook question from Merle Lucky Johnson (ph). Has the question arose about Watts taking a lie detector test? Tom

Verni, what do you think about a lie detector test?

TOM VERNI, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE: We have seen in cases prior to this one, cases similar to this, that sometimes in a lot of cases, lie

detector test is not absolute. It`s gauged to see if a person has a response, a physiological response, to a question that`s being given.

So, someone would ask me, you know, are you going bald? I would say, yes, clearly we know that`s the case. But if I said no, then I would

have a physical response to that, because I`m trying to hide the truth to that, the sad truth.

So that`s what the lie detector test will show. Some sort of change in your breathing or you`re sweating or something like that. So they`ve

been ruled to be not really effective in a lot of cases. So, it is not really reliable.

And, you know, defense attorneys and I`m sure defense attorney here can corroborate that they will go after stuff like that as being not

reliable to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

CASAREZ: Right. And they are not allowed in most jurisdictions in a courtroom.

VERNI: Correct.

CASAREZ: Unless both sides want them in and that`s still dependent on the jurisdiction. All right, we got more Facebook questions. You want to

hear them.

[18:45:00] We`ll be right back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two thousand eighteen is my year. I`m claiming it.

We say, I am loved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am loved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We love Shannan and those girls so much.

[18:50:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): I am special.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am special.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He just didn`t seem like the type of guy to injure a fly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They had the hearts of angels and the souls of angels. I can`t believe that they`re gone.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CASAREZ: Precious, precious girls. There is more than one theory about how the Watts girls ended up deceased. Dumped in oil tanks on their

father`s work site with their pregnant mother buried nearby. And there`s more than one theory about which parent could have killed them and why.

So we are taking your ideas and your Facebook questions as we try to whittle down what exactly happened in this absolutely horrendous case.

We have a Facebook question from Kelly Martin who says, these are good questions, were authorities ever able too explore the possibility of

"Alexa" inadvertently capturing audio during the murders?

Well, Kelly, we don`t know any of the evidence. We know that they have taken a lot of bags out of that home. A lot bags. But your question is

so noble because you are talking about technology that is here but has it ever come into a courtroom?

Listen to something from Facebook, from actually the family that was posted obviously before everything happened. It has to do with "Alexa."

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, guys. Black Label got me dancing in the kitchen when I`m cooking dinner. Feeling amazing. Day two. Alexa, turn

it down. Day two. Alexa, turn it down. Alexa, turn it down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Eric, I have to ask you, have you ever seen -- come into a courtroom at this point? I mean, the future I think is wide open in this

but to have something that is recorded that forensically investigators can get a subpoena and somehow rather get the information and it comes

into a courtroom.

JOHNSON: Well, the question is going to be the admissibility of this new-found technology. I haven`t seen it as of yet, but I`m sure the

prosecutors will find a way to possibly get it in if it is relevant and pertinent to the case.

CASAREZ: You know, isn`t it true, Tom, that as technology goes further and further, new avenues come out, and they really are for the

investigator and for the prosecutor, they`re not necessarily for the defense?

VERNI: This happens a lot of time where -- they`ll try to make a case where the person who commits the crime will say they`re in one place,

right? And then we do a ping on their cell phone with the cell phone towers, and we`re showing -- well, were you in possession of your cell

phone at this time?

Yes, I was. But your cell phone is placing you at the place of the crime, so how could you say you were at point "A" when you really were

at point "B,"

Technology like that definitely helps us out. Defense attorneys can pick at that as well in different forms. They could say, that`s not reliable

and so forth. But more and more -- and cameras. That`s why one of the first things they will do is check cameras all over the place. See those

cameras, check the social media.

CASAREZ: That could help the defense right there because the security camera doesn`t show the person there at all the, so that can go on the

other side.

Fran Monroe (ph) has a Facebook question. She says, who was Chris Watts on the phone with when he gave an interview, because one of those three

media interviews he gave, he was on the phone. Pat Lalama, who was he talking to?

PAT LALAMA, CRIME JOURNALIST: Oh, gee, I have no idea. I mean, a friend, his father. I know he was close to his father. He asked his

father to come to the jail before he was arrested. I can`t answer that question. Hopefully someone who can help him out.

CASAREZ: Well, it had to be somebody important, right, because he is talking to the reporters on one side and on the phone with the other

hand. So, hopefully, it was someone that was very, very important. You can believe that investigators will find out who it is.

LALAMA: Do you 20 seconds?

CASAREZ: Yeah.

LALAMA: OK, so back to the issue of insanity, it occur to me, I`m a crime journalist, not a lawyer, but doesn`t giving that bold face lie

about desperately searching for his family show a consciousness of guilt and someone who could discern between what is right and wrong and

therefore how could he be insane?

CASAREZ: Well, that`s what the prosecutors would say, the defense would rely on their psychological state and also say that it was at the time

that the act was committed. All right, we`re going to be right back. We`re going to talk once again to Kirk Nurmi. We want to hear his advice

for the Watts defense team.

[18:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CASAREZ: Welcome back. Kirk Nurmi, as the lead defense attorney for Jodi Arias, and we got 20 seconds, what is the advice that you have at

this point for Watts defense team?

NURMI: I would say that they should focus on the trial in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.

[19:00:05] And they should do everything they can to find moments of is serenity in their lives as this goes forward because the stress can, in

fact, kill you.

JEAN CASAREZ, HLN, HOST: That`s really good advice. All right. Thank you so much to all of our guests. The next hour of Crime and

Justice starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CRIME AND JUSTICE, HOST: His story is, they died at the hands of their mother, and that had to be after 2:00 a.m. Monday.

JOSEPH SCOTT MORGAN, FORENSIC PROFESSOR, JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY: Within the stomach itself, that moment is frozen in time. Time is of

the essence here.

BANFIELD: Tonight, big new possibilities in the case of the Colorado family man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s a cheater.

BANFIELD: Accused of murdering his pregnant wife and daughters.

CHRIS WATT, ACCUSED OF KILLING WIFE, CHILDREN: We had an emotional conversation, but I`ll leave it at that.

BANFIELD: Is there evidence their deaths were premeditated? Computers and phones and bedding and evidence tying watts to both crime scenes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bed sheet matched a set found in Chris Watts` kitchen trash can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the origin of these hairs in the truck?

BANFIELD: And was there a different plan for getting rid of the bodies.

PAT LALAMA, CRIME JOURNALIST: This is a man who may have severe emotional issues and he wanted to be completely unencumbered and that

would take some planning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Good evening. I`m Jean Casarez in for Ashleigh Banfield. Thank you so much for joining us. This is Crime and Justice.

It`s the case of Chris Watts. And it`s coming down to he said, she said or rather, he said, they said with Chris saying his wife killed both

their daughters. And the police saying Chris killed all three of them. Police say he dumped their bodies at his worksite, before telling

everyone his family was simply missing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATTS: She wasn`t here, the kids weren`t here, nobody was here. No, I wasn`t going to kiss them to bed tonight. It was -- that`s why I left

and it was just horrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: But now, the details from both crime scenes are starting to emerge, and according to explosive reporting from People Magazine there

might just be evidence that Chris killed his little girls as well as his wife Shanann, and had it all planned out in advance. My panelist with

me, but I do want to start with crime journalist Pat Lalama.

Pat, we have just gotten some brand new documents from the court. And we don`t get them very often.

LALAMA: I know.

CASAREZ: They are riveting in nature, in the fact that number one, the defense is asking that the prosecutors office launch an investigation

into what they say are leaks from the prosecutor`s office. So we`re saying leaks. What are the leaks? Well People Magazine has just come

out with riveting reporting.

LALAMA: Right.

CASAREZ: And sources they say are close to the case.

LALAMA: Right.

CASAREZ: What is People Magazine saying that it looks like the defense is something such an issue with?

LALAMA: Well there`s a lot of evidentiary information as you know the story about hundreds of hairs being found inside Chris Watts` truck

which is going to be significant one way or the other. Talking about we believe more and more that this was premeditated.

But here`s the thing Jean, if I just got the documents too, and I was zipping through them, about 30 seconds before air time. I`m gleaning

from that that the leaks look more -- at least from the prosecutor`s perspective. The leaks are not from them, if there are leaks, they

acknowledge that -- somebody`s acknowledging they could come from the police department which begs the question, then who the heck is going to

pay for any investigation. And I think that`s where they`re at a log jam right now, where are the leaks coming from, and who`s responsible

for finding that out?

CASAREZ: And the prosecutors say that in the response, saying, who`s going to pay for all this?

LALAMA: Yes.

CASAREZ: But what people magazines says Pat Lalama and you can go into this is that there is evidence that in was me meditation

LALAMA: Right.

CASAREZ: For the deaths or murders of these three people.

LALAMA: Well, you know, that`s rather and you know this being a lawyer Jean. It`s a vague statement. I mean what are the specifics? He told

someone a week before? Hey, I`m getting rid of my family or is there some evidence on a computer. Is there evidence in a text message?

Because shockingly, he didn`t, according to these leaks in People Magazine, didn`t delete anything. So I think it`s safe to say the

police know a lot of things we don`t know that D.A. and prosecutors or prosecutors or defense know things we don`t know that is leading in that

-- making them line in that direction.

CASAREZ: Tom Verni, you are a former NYPD Detective Law Enforcement Consultant. And there`s a lot of information here that if you put this

together, paves a story. First of all, he is charged right now, with first degree murder not second degree, not manslaughter. But first

degree murder which includes that premeditated murder.

TOM VERNI, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT: Right.

CASAREZ: And the source that is cited in the People Magazine article saying that there has been so much evidence collected to date, including

computers, all electronic devices, and that text messages and searches were not deleted. What does that tell you?

TOM VERNI, NYPD DETECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSULTANT: Yes. Well, either that he was very sloppy in what he was doing. You know and it`s

great that they have so much overwhelming evidence because you know here you have someone who -- just this whole case is just disgusting to me.

It`s -- I feel so awful for the family, and my condolences to the family. I mean these pour young children and his lovely wife. I mean

here we have a troubled individual that saying that he`s snapped. I mean, clearly he snapped, but he clearly took steps to go about this in

a very methodical manner, based on what we know already.

And all the facts and evidence haven`t even come out yet. But based on what we know, he killed them and brought them to a different location to

hide them. So Jean, that in upon itself is digging himself even deeper in this hole.

CASAREZ: Right. And prosecutors will mostly likely say he didn`t snap. He was methodical. He premeditated this.

VERNI: Right.

CASAREZ: And when you think about computer searches and you think about Casey Anthony comes to mind.

VERNI: Right, right. Exactly. Yes.

CASAREZ: And was searches for chloroform, right? That were found at very high levels found in that car. I mean the searches, can they show

police which goes to prosecutor`s premeditation?

VERNI: Well yes, anything he did, whether again the previous discussion you`re talking about whether it was text messages of some sort, whether

he did the online search on you know how to kill somebody and what to buy, you know, when you`re killing somebody. If he went to home depot

and brought you know tape and duck tape and straps and shovel and lime.

Yes, I mean, there`s a lot of different pieces of this puzzle that are being put together by investigators already. And I don`t -- I don`t

think they`re at the bottom of the facts and evidence. That`s on top of all the forensic evidence think have on him you know, in regards to this

case.

CASAREZ: Eric Johnson, Defense Attorney joining us tonight. I want to ask you. This is a novel move by the defense to call for and asked for

an investigation into where the leaks are because virtually, there haven`t leaks. I mean there`s was so much information we don`t know.

But this is the first window through that People Magazine article to show that they may have evidence of that premeditation of three separate

murders. How much success will they have in asking for an investigation of where the leaks are?

ERIC JOHNSON DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well I think it`s going to be very important in this matter because if exactly what we`re talking about

here. We have a situation where they`re saying there`s premeditation, however, they`re based on entirely assumptions.

We don`t know what is in his e-mails. We don`t know what is in his texts. And it could be situation that those things may evidence his

infidelity, which is the state has been trying to use as a reason that he will commit these crimes. However, that is something else. And that

does not dispute his allegation that he may have snapped. So by this information getting out, that does in some way possibly contaminate the

jury in them thinking that this was premeditation. And this -- and to go against his possibility of his business as being something where

there`s was a heat of passion.

CASAREZ: You know Chris one of the bigger challenges potentially for this department in the short term are all of the interviews he did. He

did three different media interviews. And he really painted his defense.

It puts him in a corner because he has said what the defense is going to be. That was actually in the affidavit. But in the interviews that he

did we want to show everyone, this is from K.U.S.A. And we haven`t heard this before, this is brand new that he said to an affiliate in the

Denver area.

But he said, in regard to the backyard. He said, were all the doors around the house locked? That`s the reporter. Well he says, well, the

front doors were locked. Watt says the garage door was unlocked. But that`s normal, for when she comes into the house and she leaves it

unlocked.

But the back door, sliding door, well that was locked as well, so then the reporter says, well, how would she have left the house? Because

remember, Watts said she was gone. She was missing so this right -- very near beginning. How would she have left the house if she did leave

the house? Then Watts says and try to keep with this. I don`t want to put anything out there, like suspecting if somebody pulled her in the

back because we have a driveway back there from the new town homes but it`s so hard to tell.

There`re no cameras in the backyard or anything like that so it`s really hard to suspect anything right now as far as how she could have left or

if someone came and picked her up or someone took her. What? That is the affiliate K.U.S.A. It is not an affiliate. It is K.U.S.A.

television. But we are reading that. They are allowing us to do that.

I want to ask you right here Tom. I mean he went into all of this, is he trying to paint an abduction at that point?

VERNI: It sure sounds like it. I mean but again everything that has come out since then is kind of -- everything comes back to him. It`s

actually the fact that he said that he did.

CASAREZ: Yes .

VERNI: So, you know, just at face value, we`re talking about a guy that admitted that he killed his wife. So it`s just -- everything so far

circumstantial evidence and even the forensic evidence is coming back to him. There`s no one else that would be involved in this, as far as we

can tell. And there`s no reason anyone else would be involved in this, other than him.

CASAREZ: Right, so let`s listen to his own voice right now, all right? He talks about, if somebody has her, and this is an interview he did

with a local affiliate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think she just took off?

WATTS: I mean right now, I don`t even want to throw anything out there like I hope she`s somewhere safe right now and with the kids. But I

mean could she have just taken off? I don`t know, but if somebody has her and they`re not safe like I want them back now if they are safe,

they`re coming back. But if they`re not, this has got to stop like somebody has to come forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: All right, Eric Johnson, as a defense attorney, this is very difficult when there`s something come into the courtroom during trial

because it is a statement against his interest when it comes out that he said they didn`t go anywhere. No one abduct her. She didn`t got

missing. But he snapped after she saw that she was killing the children.

JOHNSON: Yes, well, if you look at it. I mean you have two separate things that you have to look at, the commission of the mentioned crime

of murder, and the action that he took to cover it up. So, therefore, because there was a crime committed, the fact that he may have taken

some acts to cover it up does not oppose to the question of whether or not this is first degree murder as he`s going to be charged or second

degree murder as he is claiming, based on his assertion that he snapped.

So the fact is we do know that she is dead. And that he may -- it`s easy for the state to tie into the fact that he may be involved with the

cover-up. And the cover-up itself shows and possibly disapproves the premeditation for multiple factors, his statement and the fact that he

does not have what is perceived to be rehearsed answer to the cops.

He`s speculating. He`s throwing things out there. He`s very unsure of himself. Also, the fact that her personal information we`re recovered.

If this was premeditated information he would have done something with her purse. He would have done something with her credit cards. He

would have done something with her telephone.

And also, the fact that this was done at his job would be the first place they would look, shows that there was not a high deal of planning.

Its shows that the mother was found simply buried and the kids because they were small were found in an oil drum. So that is something he

conveniently disposed of in a location that he thought the people would not reach. It does not show a high degree of premeditation, and does

not disprove his position.

CASAREZ: All right. Well I know we have to separate out the alleged murder from the covering up and the tampering with a corpse. But Pat

Lalama, your thoughts?

LALAMA: OK. Well your guest makes great points. And there`s no doubt that, you know, going back to the police issue leaking can prejudice the

defendant the right to due process. But and it`s not up to me to convict this guy. But everything he says when he opens his mouth is

painting himself.

You talk about painting a kidnapping. I say he`s painting himself into a corner. He`s not that bright, sir. He`s not that bright. He thinks

he`s bright. He`s one of those guys who says, I can talk my way out of this.

You know I`m good looking. I`m this family man. He thinks. He`s like Scott Peterson. He`s like Drew Peterson. And he`s like Casey Anthony.

He thinks he`s got that thing that he can ramble on and make some sense. And he`s not that bright and I would venture to guess that maybe he`s a

little off his rocker.

JOHNSON: Well then it`s also safe to say by your claim of him having lack of higher intelligence that would also disprove the premeditation

in this point. If you have somebody --

LALAMA: Not necessarily. Dumb people premeditate all the time. Sorry. I mean I don`t think it takes intelligence and in fact, most idiots get

caught when they premeditate, you know, a murder. But it just -- it doesn`t make sense to me oh, I just snapped.

Here`s a man with a history of financial problems. He is a cheater. He allegedly has some sort of sexual identity issues. I mean I`m not a

psychologist. But I think were going to find it. This man as I said before and I`ll say it until the cows come home did not -- he wanted to

be unincumbered.

He didn`t want any responsibilities and like Scott Peterson in my mind decided I`m going to throw the baby -- well that`s a bad pun. I`m going

to get rid of them all so I don`t have to think about it.

CASAREZ: But he did do three interviews. He was searching for his wife.

LALAMA: Yes, because he`s stupid.

CASAREZ: He said that with a straight face.

LALAMA: He`s stupid.

CASAREZ: And the fact is, like 24 hours after this interview, he`s going to confess that they didn`t go anywhere. That they were all in

the house and yes he gives a story that may or not be true. We don`t know.

He`s got the presumption of innocence at this point. There will be a defense.

LALAMA: True.

CASAREZ: But the fact is, once the trial gets going, all of this can be played for the jury, and it shows someone isn`t telling the truth right

there.

LALAMA: Exactly my point.

CASAREZ: In all of those interviews.

JOHNSON: But in every -- but every crime, you have very few immediate confessions. So therefore, the fact that there was an attempted cover-

up, the fact that there was a lie that was told is normally regular behavior in these circumstances. Nobody really confesses at the first

time so therefore --

LALAMA: My friend, my friend me, excuse me. My wife was killing the babies. I saw it in the monitor. That like he`s thinking far ahead and

that`s a figure OK, I`m not going to get away with OK she just disappeared. So OK let me think. Oh yes, I saw my children being

killed, that`s a good one. I mean he`s no rocket scientist, OK?

CASAREZ: Right, we`re going to continue this after the break, what Pat was saying, he was very detailed in what he told police on that

Wednesday 24 hours after those interviews right there. All right after the break, Chris Watts has only made one court appearance so far.

But what will it be like to try and defend him. And what are the challenges for his attorneys in such a high profile case. Believe it or

not, we have an attorney with us tonight. Kurt Nurmi. You know him. Jodi Arias` lead defense attorney about what Chris Watts` defense team

can expect. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATTS: I don`t know where my kids are. I don`t know where Shanann is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It came to her mind that he could be cheating.

WATTS: If somebody has her, just please bring her back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s one detail that Watts` he left out. That he had been having an extra marital affair with a co-worker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I always wondered why he was so quiet.

WATTS: This house is not complete without anybody here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: When we first met Chris Watts, he was a handsome young father worried about his family`s whereabouts. And he seemed like the perfect

dad in all of the pictures and the videos. His loving wife posted on Facebook.

But police say Chris Watts is a cheater and a killer, willing to murder his own family, hide their bodies and lie about it. And now, the whole

country knows that side of the story. So how hard is it going to be to defend the two faced dad, who allegedly killed his own kids?

Joining us tonight, Defense Attorney Kirk Nurmi. He has come full circle from his time as a public defender for Jody Arias so he knows

what it`s like to defend the indefensible even a client he doesn`t like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NURMI: It`s not whether or not you like Jodi Arias. Nine days out of ten, I don`t like Jodi Arias.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Kirk Nurmi is also the author of trapped with Ms. Arias. That is a booked you`ve got to read. And the more we look at the Chris

Watts` case, the more that we really have questions and it is -- it is just so great to have you on tonight.

You know, Kirk, I was in that courtroom for all those months with Jodi Arias. I watched you. And it was a tremendous defense that you gave

her. Tremendous defense work, and you saved her life. Obvious, there was a conviction of first degree premeditated murder. But you saved her

life. And it was a -- it was great to watch you at work all those months.

Here`s what I want to ask you. You know right now, with the Watts case, there`s a lot of silence. We`re not hearing a lot. I mean, finally a

couple motions were available to look at tonight really just procedurally, you know, wanting an investigation on leaks and the judge

is also saying that all the court documents and filings will be suppressed. Unless you get a court order which sort of is in essence

that they are sealed.

But what`s going on behind the scenes right now? What is the public defender and prosecutor doing?

NURMI: Well first of all, thank you for your kind words, Jean. It`s great to be back with you. You know, I think the -- from the defense

perspective anyway, and to some degree from the prosecutor`s perspective, it`s like having a hand grenade thrown in your lap. You`re

trying to get a sense of what`s going on, trying to assess the situation and diffuse it as best you can in the immediate short term.

CASAREZ: So as a -- as a public defender, you were assigned Jodi Arias. The defense attorney here has been assigned Chris Watts. Can you refuse

a case when you`re a public defender? You know, I just -- I don`t want to do that one or do you have to do it.

NURMI: Well you`re pretty much have to do it. I mean I think this -- my suspicion is that, given that there are two attorneys assigned to

this case, that it`s very possible this is going to be a death penalty case, which is the situation I was in the capital unit of the public

defender`s office. So there is no good cases. There is no good choices, and ultimately in a situation like this, you are kind of

assigned the case. It is your duty, and in my situation, I was ordered by the court to retain the case even when I left the public defender`s

office.

CASAREZ: You know, one of the similarities I see with the -- this case even earlier on as it is and with Jodi`s case is that the public

sentiment out here. What you hear people talking about, there are not two sides to this case, you do not hear anything about the defense even

-- even believing in the defense, whatever it may be. It is all for the victims.

Because three beautiful people lost their lives.

How hard is it to defend the case when not only the country is watching, but the public sentiment is 100 percent with the victim?

NURMI: Well look, the sympathy for the victim is -- it is understood. And as a matter of fact, myself as an attorney, and other attorneys,

they probably have that same sympathy for the victim as well. But this is a situation in which we have a constitutional democracy and we have

decided that everybody gets sixth amendment rights, not just people we like. Not just people that do crimes that don`t offend us, to the

degree that this crime offends us. So, to answer your question then, they have that sympathy, but they have a job to do, to detach themselves

from the crime itself, and focus on actualizing those rights that he is due via the sixth amendment and potentially save his life should the

state of Colorado decide to seek the death penalty in this case. Which as I said earlier, I believe they will.

CASAREZ: Another similarity I see is that Jodi had three different scenarios of what happened to her. One being she wasn`t at Travis`

home. The other that they were mass burglars that came in and committed the crime murdering Travis. And third, that she was there but it was

self-defense.

Here in this case, he has also painted himself into a corner because he has been so specific in saying that he saw one of his babies blue, and

she was strangling the other baby, and he snapped and strangled her. How difficult is it that the defense when you, from the very beginning

you`re -- you`re really put in that corner of what your defense is going to be?

NURMI: Right. You`re behind the eight ball right away, but ultimately, if the case were to go to trial which I`m sure is public defenders are

hoping it won`t. He determines what that ultimate defense is going to be and he can offer an explanation for why he said the things he said.

And of course, I think what we`re seeing here, Jean is just the tip of the iceberg because while we`ve seen these interviews and everything

else, my suspicion is, there`s hours of interrogation footage. And like your guests earlier saying, there`s going to be phone records and e-

mails and things like that, that he`s going to be asked about that we`re not privy too at this moment in time. That are going to lengthen that

interrogation.

And so, you`re going to have a lot of Mr. Watts on tape if he was foolish enough from a criminal defense perspective to keep talking.

CASAREZ: Right. Now, I remember with Jodi Arias, they had quite a case of premeditation. I mean it took days to look at what she did as she

made her way to Arizona, all the steps she took. But you were then actually able on the defense side to really show the emotional abuse

that she went through. That she was someone that he didn`t consider the marriage type. But someone that he would talk to and get together with

at night.

And really -- and this was evidence. This is not a personal opinion. He respected her. He disrespected her in many ways. So you were able

to turn that around.

Is what you`re saying, that the defense here with Chris Watts will take whatever is given to them with premeditation, be able to build the case

maybe not an acquittal, but taking that murder down to maybe a type of heat of passion manslaughter?

NURMI: Well I think, that`s exactly right, Jean because he has already confessed ultimately to killing his wife. To my understanding, he said

that, you know, he choked her in a fit of rage, et cetera, et cetera. So what you`re having to do now, I guess is try to substantiate his

claim that it was indeed in a fit of rage, because the ultimate issue becomes that lesser included offense. So, any possible death penalty

verdict or verdict that could lead to the death penalty is -- is avoided.

CASAREZ: Now, I understand that you separated out, you have a constitutional duty, that your client has constitutional rights. But

you got death threats during the time that you represented Jodi, is that right?

NURMI: I did, I got several -- you know, I was -- I got to a point where in my office I was opening my mail with rubber gloves. It was a

very scary time for myself and my entire defense team. And that goes under this misunderstanding that the public defenders or any defense

attorney necessarily believes their client, support what they did, or you know, that sort of thing, instead of defending the rights that

defends us all. And that`s why public defenders are probably in that role.

CASAREZ: But that had to affect you. You know, I remember when I was reporting, and I would come out and I would be on the air on Court TV,

national audience. And I would give the side of the prosecution, I would give the side of the defense, that`s what I`m supposed to do, and

social media, a lot of people said, she`s on the side of the defense. I didn`t have a stake in the matter, but as a journalist, I give both

sides, that`s what I`m supposed to do. Did it affect you? I mean, you said that it was a scary time?

NURMI: Well, there`s no doubt about it, you know, I think about the length of this case as well. I mean, it was -- it was about two years

of my life, and less -- well, five years of my life, if we`re not including the exact trial time. But I believe the stress of that, the

threats, and dealing with everything that I dealt with was the reason cancer came into my life about four months after Ms. Arias was finally

sentenced in 2015.

CASAREZ: That`s right. And you have really made some changes in your life. I know you`re a motivational speaker. We want to talk with you

about that. We`re going to have more with you as we come back, and that`s ahead.

[19:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two little girls have reportedly been submerged in an oil well for days.

CASAREZ: A man grieving for his missing family.

A husband and father who pleaded for the return of his wife and daughters has reportedly confessed to killing them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is absolutely the worst possible outcome.

SHANANN WATTS, MURDER VICTIM: He stuck around because he was the one for me.

CASAREZ: Did this family man really turn into a family annihilator?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: We are still talking about the murder case that has the country on edge, trying to figure out whether Chris Watts really killed

his children along with his pregnant wife before police say he dumped all three of their bodies at his worksite. The more we find out about

the possible evidence at both the home and the Watts girls final resting place, there are more questions that we have. And joining us tonight,

we have tremendous guests, but also, Kirk Nurmi is with us, the lead defense attorney he was for Jodi Arias, and also has a book that you

want to get. Now, you have become a motivational speaker and you have just changed your life. Is that because of defending Jodi Arias or

being a public defender that you`ve made this metamorphosis? There`s your book right there, "Trapped With Ms. Arias."

NURMI: Yes, I think so. You know, I attribute the stress to doing the death penalty work as the reason I got cancer. And in August in the

fall of 2015 when I was dealing with that diagnosis, I really went to a dark place and thought, do I really want to go through chemotherapy to

rebuild my life and rebuild my body. And I decided that -- yes, I did. But if I did, I wanted to do something else something else with my life.

I didn`t want to live my remaining years the way I had my first 49 years. So, I made the decision to move into that. As -- and now that

I`m out of it, as a way to try to teach people the lessons that I`ve learned from dealing with infamy and cancer.

CASAREZ: Wow! I think that`s fascinating, and I know you`re going to be in Seattle in October, giving a motivational speech. I want to go to

our Facebook questions, because we have viewers that absolutely are little investigators. And they have tremendous questions. Kimberly

Hooks has a very interesting question. Kimberly writes, "If I really mean, if she did kill them, does he get away with killing her? Is it

justified homicide?" To Eric Johnson, defense attorney, if the evidence comes out that she snapped, she`s the one that snapped because he said

that he wants a separation, right? And she goes in and takes it out on the children.

ERIC JOHNSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well --

CASAREZ: But then he says that he snapped and he murdered her. I mean, is it good for the defense?

[19:40:06] JOHNSON: Based on the Facebook -- well, based on the question, if he did -- if the mother did in fact kill them, it would not

get him off, because the fact of the matter remain the children would have been already dead when he observed them. So, he can`t say that he

killed her trying to protect the children. But it may be something that will reduce the charge down from first-degree murder to second-degree

murder.

CASAREZ: Right, and we also know that premeditation going to be formed in an instant, right? It`s all the facts and the circumstances.

JOHNSON: Yes.

CASAREZ: Tim Gallagher, medical examiner and forensic pathologist, you know, as you do autopsies and there were three of them here, you collect

evidence, you do so much analysis on the medical area, but when it comes to the perpetrator that actually committed the murder, is there anything

forensically that can help give you the clues to go to then the answers at some point?

DR. TIM GALLAGHER, MEDICAL EXAMINER AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST (via telephone): Well, that`s a good question, Jean. You know, during the

autopsy, we do observe injuries on the victims. And if the person was indeed manually strangled, then we would have fingerprints or we would

have evidence of finger impressions or finger markings or finger damage on the neck. And then, we could size them, generally, and then

according to the size of the injury, include or eliminate some people from the list of suspects.

CASAREZ: Very interesting. What about -- what about hairs or fibers on the body that correlate forensically with one person?

GALLAGHER: Well, in this case, that would be a little difficult, since the bodies were found, I believe in an oil drum filled with crude oil.

CASAREZ: Right.

GALLAGHER: So, any hair -- any hair there may have been floated away or not collected with the body. But realistically, if this was the father

of the children and they lived in the same house, then having the father`s hair on the children`s body would be something to be expected,

you know, and not something that would be questioned.

CASAREZ: Right. And maybe that oil actually allowed forensically things to stick to the bodies. Let`s go to another Facebook question

from Vicki Monett. Good question, "Is it too late for Chris Watts to claim insanity?" Kirk Nurmi, as a defense attorney, when you`re coming

on board, is it important to get a psychological analysis of your client very close in time to when this all happens?

NURMI: You bet, the sooner -- the sooner, the better, because then the psychologist can most accurately assess their state of mind. What they

were thinking in their psychological state at that time, and then formulate a report and let the attorneys take it from there. That`s

very crucial to have it happen right away.

CASAREZ: Right, exactly. But with all the interviews he did, 24 hours after that, that makes insanity a tough climb, doesn`t it, even though

it`s at the moment that the killing is taking place? You`ve got -- because he seems like he knows right from wrong, and knows that a crime

may have happened to his wife, she`s missing at this point, but it makes it challenging.

NURMI: It could make it challenging, certainly, but then we`re also talking about two different periods of time. We`re talking about when

he committed the crime and the post-crime interview. So, there are two different levels of time that the psychologist will assess and making an

overall judgement regarding his mental stability.

CASAREZ: Right. And Facebook question from Merle Luckie Johnson, "Has the question arose about Watts taking a lie detector test?" Tom Verni,

what do you think about a lie detector test?

TOM VERNI, FORMER DETECTIVE, NYPD: I mean, we have seen in cases prior to this one, and cases similar to this, that sometimes -- and a lot of

times, cases that lie detector test is not absolute, right? It`s gauged to see if a person has a response, a physiological response to a

question that`s being given. So, someone would ask me, you know, are you going bald? I would say, yes. Clearly, we know that`s the case,

you know? But if I said no, then I would have a physical response to that, you know, because I`m trying to hide the truth, you know, the sad

truth.

So, that`s what the lie detector test will show, some sort of change you know, in your breathing or in your -- I mean, you`re sweating or

something like that. So, they`ve been ruled to be not really effective in a lot of cases. So, they`re not really reliable. And you know,

defense attorneys and I`m sure the defense attorneys here can corroborate that, that will go after stuff like that as being not

reliable to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

[19:45:04] CASAREZ: Right. And they are not allowed in most jurisdictions in a courtroom.

VERNI: Correct.

CASAREZ: Unless both sides want them in, and that`s still dependent on the jurisdiction. All right. We`ve got more Facebook questions. If

you want to hear them, we`ll be right back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:50:05] S. WATTS: 2018 is my year, I`m claiming it.

We say, I am loved.

BELLA WATTS, MURDER VICTIM: I am loved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We love Shanann and those girls so much.

S. WATTS: I am special.

B. WATTS: I am special.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He just didn`t seem like the type of guy to injure a fly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They had the hearts of angels and the souls of angels.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t believe that they`re gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Precious, precious girls. There is more than one theory about how the Watts girls wound up deceased. Dumped in oil tanks on their

father`s worksite with their pregnant mother buried nearby. And there`s more than one theory about which parent could have killed them and why.

So, we are taking your ideas and your Facebook questions as we try to whittle down what exactly happened in this absolutely horrendous case.

We have a Facebook question from Kelly Martin who says -- these are good questions -- "Were authorities ever able to explore the possibility of

Alexa inadvertently capturing audio during the murders?" Well, Kelly, we don`t know any of the evidence. We know that they have taken a lot

of bags out of that home, a lot of bags, but your question is so novel because you`re talking about technology that is here but has it ever

come into a courtroom? Listen to something from Facebook from actually the family that was posted, obviously, before everything happened. It

has to do with Alexa. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

S. WATTS: OK, guys, Black Label got me dancing in the kitchen while I`m cooking dinner. Feeling amazing, day two. Alexa, turn it down. Day

two -- Alexa, turn it down. Alexa, turn it down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Eric, I`ve got to ask you, have you ever seen come into a courtroom at this point? I mean, the future I think is wide open in

this, but to have something that is recorded that forensically investigators can get a subpoena and somehow rather get the information

and it comes into a courtroom.

JOHNSON: Well, the question is, will be the admissibility of this new found technology, and I haven`t seen it as of yet, but I`m sure the

prosecutors will fill a way to get -- to possibly get it in, if it is relevant and pertinent to the case.

CASAREZ: You know, isn`t it true, Tom, that as technology goes farther and farther, new avenues come out, and they really are for the

investigator and for the prosecutor, they`re not necessarily for the defense.

VERNI: Yes. Well, this happens a lot of times where the -- they`ll try to make a case where the person that commits a crime are saying they

were one place, right? And then, we do a ping on their cell phone, you know, with the cell phone towers, and we`re showing -- and will answer,

well, were you in possession of your cell phone at this such and such time, and they`ll say, yes, I was. But your cell phone is placing you

at the place of the crime, so how can you say you were at point A when you really were at point B. So, it`s technology like that that

definitely helps us out. You know, the defense attorneys, you know, can pick at that, as well in different forms, and while they might not be

necessarily be reliable and so forth, but more and more -- and cameras, you know, that`s why one of the first things they`ll do is check cameras

all over the place to see those cameras, they`ll check the social media aspect.

CASAREZ: And that can help the defense right there because the security camera doesn`t show the person there at all. So, that can go on the

other side. Fren Monroe has a Facebook question, she says, "Who was Chris Watts on the phone with when he gave an interview?" because one of

those three media interviews he gave he was on the phone. Pat Lalama, who was he talking to?

PAT LALAMA, MANAGING EDITOR, CRIME WATCH DAILY: Oh, gee, you would have to ask me the one question I have no idea. I mean, a friend, his

father. I know he was close to his father, and asked his father to come to the jail before he was arrested. I can`t answer that question.

Hopefully, someone that can help him out.

CASAREZ: Well, it had to have been somebody important, right? Because he`s talking to the reporters on the one side and on the phone with the

other hand. So, hopefully, it was someone that was very, very important. And you can believe that investigators will find out who it

is.

LALAMA: Do you have 20 seconds?

CASAREZ: Yes.

LALAMA: Do you have 20 seconds? OK. So, back to that issue of insanity, it occurred to me -- I`m a crime journalist, not a lawyer, but

doesn`t giving that boldface lie about desperately searching for his family show a consciousness of guilt, and someone who can discern

between what`s right and wrong, and therefore, how could he be insane?

CASAREZ: Well, that`s what the prosecutors would say, the defense would rely on their psychological tease and also say that it was at the time

that the act was committed. All right. We`re going to be right back and we`re going to talk once again to Kirk Nurmi. We want to hear his

advice for the Watts` defense team.

[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CASAREZ: Welcome back. Kirk Nurmi, as the lead defense attorney for Jodi Arias, and we`ve got 20 seconds, what is the advice that you have

at this point for Watts` defense team?

END