← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Watts Family Murders: Attorney Tom Grant on the 2018 Tragedy
00:33:12
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Chris Watts murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters in 2018. Years later, conspiracies, harassment, and a fight to reclaim the story.
- [00:14]
B
It's very clear who was responsible. He knows he was responsible. He admitted it.
- [00:20]
A
Joining me today is Colorado attorney for the family of Shannon Watts, Tom Grant. Tom, thank you so much for being here today. First of all, I just want to, you know, bring our listeners and viewers up to speed. This is the Shannan Watts case, where her husband, Chris, murdered her and her two children for really no apparent reason other than the fact that he was having an affair. And honestly, I continue to say on this podcast, I don't understand why people do not just get divorced. And how anybody could put people that they even loved at one point through this, an innocent children, is just really beyond me. But what has happened since the case, and I guess the only redeeming part here for Chris was the fact that he admitted, confessed, and at least took the police to these bodies so the family could have some level of closure. So I guess that's the only redeeming thing that he did was to try to spare his own life by at least admitting to. To what he did, which doesn't always happen. So from that standpoint, yeah, so from that standpoint, we'll say, okay, they at least got some answers. But right after he pled guilty, the family did file a wrongful death suit against Chris, and that was, I believe, the same day he was sentenced for the murder of his wife and daughters. Where does that stand?
- [01:45]
B
The he. He did not contest that lawsuit. And so There was a $6 million judgment in favor of the family that was entered by default.
- [01:56]
A
And they'll probably never recover much from that is my guess. I don't think so, but it's at least, at least a moral victory from that standpoint. So let's talk about, I think, what's. What's really been interesting about this, and I think people know about the case. They're horrified by what happened. But what is interesting now is where this case has gone since then. And I think in light of what's happened in the last couple of days, with judgments coming down against Meta, against Google, for online platforms, and the way that they have conducted their business practices, especially in dealing with minors children. One of the lawsuits had to do with trafficking. One has to do with whether or not their platforms are purposely addicting children. This is a little bit different, but it still deals with the perils of social media. So talk to me about what the family has dealt with in terms of backlash from social media and what they have attempted to do about it. And I think that'll make for a really interesting conversation given where we are with these platforms today.
- [03:01]
B
I think so, too. You know, in terms of what has happened to the family, for anybody who's not aware, there has been just an onslaught from basically from day one of cyber bullying and, you know, things that were just made up that weren't true at all. People were accusing Frank and Sandy, which were Shannan's mom and. Or are Shannan's mom and dad being some. In some way involved in this or part of it, or that they were keeping silence so that the real perpetrators could go free. They have alleged that Shanann's brother Frankie was also involved in this. They've just said horrible things about the family and, and about Shanann. Which is the part that's most hurtful, I think, to her family, is that they say things about her like she was a horrible mom, or, you know, she had this coming. She wasn't a good wife. And those are people's opinions. But it's incredibly hurtful to her family. And, and the things that are completely false about the family somehow participating in this are obviously of great concern and, and really gets into the. The role that social media plays in all this. Like, what. What should we be doing about that? And what. What's going to happen with section230? Are they. Is it going to be amended or changed? I know the Department of Justice is saying they're, they're. They're working on it, and they have some ideas. And I think that going all the way back to 2020, there were letters from Bill Barr explaining, you know, some ideas about how they might be able to amend Section 230. But, yeah, I think those verdicts that happened, what was it, California? And the day before that, it was New Mexico. New Mexico was a huge one, like $375 million against Meta. So I think it's. It's. I think we're starting to see the. The landscape shift a little bit, but I think there are still a lot of families that are in the same position the Russicks are in.
- [05:19]
A
Well, and the Rusicks, that's Frank and Sandy, her parents. I really want to talk about this because what I find most astounding about this, and I think it's also really relevant to have this conversation in light of all of the sort of infighting that we see with social media, podcasters, influencers, having to do with politics, right, there's, there's certain factions of parties that kind of veer off and then you find this in infighting happening in political parties. And what I think is really interesting in this case is you have a defendant, Father Chris, who not only pled guilty, not only admitted to what happened, but actually took the police to the bodies, gave them the location of what he did, how he did it. So the fact that there, there was no question here about not only who done it, but there was not even a trial where he put up a defense. So here we're in a situation where there's no doubt about who did this. So the fact that there's this social media campaign against Shanann, against her family, questioning who could have done this, I find to be just totally unbelievable.
- [06:32]
B
Yeah, it seems so wrong and you don't know where people would even come up with it, as you said. I mean, one of the most incredible things about this. Well, everything about this case, it's is amazing. It's. It's unbelievable in terms of the cruelty that Chris displayed. But also it's kind of amazing as you know from doing a lot of trial work and being involved in criminal defense work. This happened in, on August 13. He had pled guilty by November, I think it was sixth or something like that, and was sentenced by November 19th. So within almost a 90 day period from the crime being committed to him being sentenced for it. You know, most minor traffic offenses are handled that efficiently or in that amount of time. So. So he did step forward. And it's very clear anybody who watched any of the court proceedings, it's very clear who was responsible. He knows he was responsible, he admitted it. And so for people to dig up ideas, you know, I'm not sure where they come from, just completely fabricated and decide that they want to put out there on social media. Maybe this happened instead or maybe this is the real killer or. It's hard to imagine, but so painful for Frank and Sandy and Frankie. They have suffered a lot over the, you know, it's basically been a re. Victimization of victims.
- [08:11]
A
Yeah, I mean their loss is unimaginable. You don't only lose your daughter and your sister, but your two grandchildren. And as the daughter that doesn't have children, and my sister's children, you know, are the, the two grandchildren, you get knocked off that pedestal very quickly. So those grandchildren become the, you know, just the light of the grandparents eyes. And so the fact that they not only lost their daughter and sister, but their, their granddaughters and their nieces is just really, it's beyond the pale, frankly.
- [08:39]
B
And they were so close to those granddaughters and had such a relationship with them. And I think that comes through in, you know, a lot of the video clips that you can see online or the 2020 documentary that was done by Netflix, you know, that puts together sort of a montage of a lot of different things that were online. And you really feel that connection between the Rusicks and their daughter and their grandchildren.
- [09:09]
A
And I watched an interview with Frank on the Fox Nation documentary, the Watts Murders, Phases of Deterioration. And you could even now that documentary is new and anybody that wants to see it, stream it. I watched it yesterday and today and it was really fascinating too. And you can still feel the pain. I mean, you know, here we are, what, six, seven years later and you can still feel the pain. I mean, that is just absolutely horrific for, for eight years later for these, these. But let's talk about. And, and you know what? For, for our audience, section 230 is what gives social media companies protection and from liability because basically the position is you can't be responsible for things other people say on your platform because you don't have control over what other people do. So that's a very simplistic description of what that is. But so that's what social media companies have fallen back on is, is saying that, you know, they can't be responsible. Yeah.
- [10:09]
B
One of the things that I, that I read in, in that regard and it, it sort of makes it easy to understand or to, to think about is they said that they sort of relied on the similarities of cases that had to do with bookstore owners and saying that, you know, a bookstore owner wouldn't be held liable or responsible for every book that's in the store because they don't presume that the owner of the bookstore read everything in there or knows the content of everything. And so I think they're, they make that analogy to say this is similar in that these social media companies are like bookstore owners. They're not the actual publishers. So go after the publishers or the people that put the content online, but leave the social media companies alone. And I think we all know what has happened, you know, because of that, it's been taken advantage of.
- [11:00]
A
Well, and I think that's the issue and that's a, that's an easy sort of out, I think, for social media companies to use that example. But when you really think about it, you know, if you write a book, somebody has the option to like that content or not, and they can Move on. But if somebody is not only writing about you or on a page of yours or coming after you, you know, there's a difference between walking past something and experiencing repeated. Not only harassment, but defamation, frankly. And, you know, when we, when we cross that line, it becomes different. And yes, I guess the question is, what is the responsibility of these companies to, to remove it? And at the end of the day, I think this lawsuit that's been filed or was filed in the uk Talk to me about that, because I find that really interesting because that account was, was removed and taken down, Correct?
- [11:53]
B
Right. They. And I was not, to be clear, involved in that lawsuit, but Frankie, the, the son or brother of Shannan did bring a lawsuit against a YouTuber who was particularly cruel and, and had done a lot of things that were concerning for Frankie, and it was really affecting his mental health and so forth, and they were able to win a lawsuit. And as part of that lawsuit, he was ordered to take down his YouTube channel.
- [12:27]
A
So, yeah, because like anything, right, if somebody constantly calls your phone and you've told them not to call you, or if someone constantly approaches you on the street and you've said, I don't anything to do with you, and they continue to do that, that rises to the level of harassment or stalking. And I don't know why that's any different. If we're talking about it online, Right. There comes a point where there has to be someone policing that. And I think what we're seeing here is technology is always surpassing the laws, and the laws never catch up to technology. But I think it's time that we take a real look at that. And hopefully these lawsuits that we're watching happen in parts of the country now are going to spur that convers, because you just can't have this happening. I mean, these poor people have lost enough. And then I just, I can't even, I can't even fathom the person who would want to come after them, too.
- [13:21]
B
I just, I feel like the, the, the time has come. I think you put it well, when you say that, that it takes a while for the law to catch up to technology, and it does. I think that's finally starting to happen and people are realizing, citizens are, who are victims of it, people in general who read about it or are paying attention to it really realize that some sort of reform is necessary and that we're going to have to start protecting people. And, you know, Section 230 for what it's been around since 1996, I think, and it's yes, it's just been such an incredible shield and sword for the big social media platforms, and they've hidden behind that and gotten away with it for a lot of years and, you know, turned their back to stuff that they know is happening, but they've decided not to police. So I think now they're starting to be called to account for that.
- [14:31]
A
Well, I think that's the issue, too, right? I mean, obviously, we live in America. We love free speech. We are founded on this principle. But there is a difference. And first of all, free speech is not ultimate. You are not entitled to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. That's not, that's not what it. It means, number one. And number two, like I said, if we're talking about defamation and harassment, those don't fall under free speech. You can't just say things that are not true. You can't defame others. You can't spread libelous information. And so, you know, here in this situation, these people should be able to have some type of a. Of a reform. And I think what we're seeing here is that these companies have to at some point be the police of this information, because, again, you don't have ultimate rights when you go on someone else's site. Right. That's a, That's a business. And they have a right to have rules just like anybody else. I mean, you walk in any store, no shoes, no shirt, no service. Right, exactly. Same type of concept where they can say, look, we have a right to remove content. And so maybe there needs to be more just policing on the, in the private sector to be able to remove some of these commentaries, which you wouldn't be entitled to free speech in that arena.
- [15:45]
B
Right. And I think you'll see those big companies want to do that policing when they suffer enough consequences if more lawsuits are filed and they're held to account that way, I think they'll decide it's. It's time for us to do the right thing to make sure that we're being more responsible. I also think, and I don't know a lot about this, but I know that, like, speaking of technology, that, that there's so much technology out there now that can help them sift through, you know, because that's always been sort of something they can fall back on is, oh, well, there's just. There's no way millions of people posting on Facebook. We have no idea what's on there. We can't, we can't possibly look at every user, but there is software available now and AI available that could help them search for things that they know are harmful and that would, I believe, aid them in doing the right thing.
- [16:44]
A
Yeah, for sure. And now what's the state of, you know, what are their legal options now and what are they attempting or trying to pursue, given what they've dealt with in the United States?
- [16:57]
B
Well, I know that, that Sandy said, you know, please look at the camera and say, you know, ask President Trump to get Congress to do something. It is an issue that you would hope there could be some bipartisan support for. Regardless of how divided we are on things, this seems like something everybody could get behind, like don't, don't re. Victimize victims in, in some of the other parts of section 230 that are being looked at carefully in these lawsuits that are dealing with stuff like child trafficking and addicting, the sort of addictive behaviors that social media instills. I think all of that is kind of up for grabs and what they want. But Sandy would love to see real reform to section 230. They've been asking for it for, like, the last five years. I know they've contacted various lawmakers and, and requested it and, and would love to see, you know, ultimately if there is something like that and to have it be Shannan's Law, because for them, that would mean so much that they stood up for their family, their daughter and that, and, and that they're sort of some permanency to that, so.
- [18:22]
A
Well, this would be interesting, I think, too, with the First Ladies initiative, because I know she's been very anti cyber bullying. She's been very anti images that are being put up. So I think this fits right into her. Her platform and the things that she's interested in. So I think so, too. Yeah, an interesting avenue for them to go down because she seems like a very compassionate person and very passionate about this area of the law and just what's. What people are dealing with in, in this type of a situation.
- [18:52]
B
I think she would understand what, you know, and, and have a great deal of sympathy for the, for the, for the Rusics. And yeah, I, I know that, that, that they want change. And yet it's difficult because even something like, you know, I participated in the Fox Nation documentary and as did Frank, as you mentioned, and then doing a podcast today, and it's like, well, you do want to get the word out there. And yet sometimes. And we. I've had many discussions with them about this. Whenever you stick your face back out there or a representative like me to, to be the face of what's going on with them. It potentially invites more people who will be like, well, why are they, you know, talking about this? And, you know, nobody needs to feel sorry for them. And. And then it starts a whole new round of bullying. So hopefully that's not what's going to
- [19:52]
A
happen, but it's really unbelievable. And I'm wondering if this is all part of this, you know, provocative need for clicks. Right. Everybody that is involved in this online world is very concerned about how they're driving, what they're driving, how many numbers and, you know, the fact that they're getting these clicks and I also, that and, and maybe doing shows like this, we can say it's really incumbent on all of us to turn a blind eye to these things and say, you know what, they're not going to be able to do these things if no one is watching. And where they'll stop doing these things because no one is watching. And so I think that in some ways it's really a good conversation for people to have, not only with themselves, but even teenagers. And, you know, people just look at nonsense online and they're scrolling and tick tock and Facebook and YouTube and Instagram and, and they just come upon these things and really, what are, what are people watching? Human tragedy. I mean, how many times are you, what people are laughing at videos of people falling down and you know, like, we, we as, as citizens need to step up and say, you know what? I'm not going to say we're better than that.
- [21:03]
B
We're not gonna. Yes, we're not going to be entertained by other people's sorrow and tragedy and. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
- [21:12]
A
Yeah, it's a good conversation to have and I think it's, it's even a better conversation to have with young people as, as these phones are put in their hands at younger and younger ages. I mean, even now, you know, I, even the schools, right, they start with the tablets at a very young age. So you make this part of the norm as people grow up. And it's so ingrained in society that I think that there has to be a better way to, to talk about this.
- [21:36]
B
We all need to get better about it and have some, basically some training, some rules, but it's, it's evolving. I think what you were saying about just don't watch, you know, reminds me too of the conversations that I've had with the family about, can, can you just turn a blind eye to this? Like, just don't. Because there are times when they'll call and we'll have a conversation. And they're clearly so upset by something they've seen. And I'm like, just try to stay away from it. But I also understand the other side of that coin. And their response usually is like, it's just so hard to stay away when we know people are attacking our daughter and saying things about her that aren't true. And we feel like we're not doing the right thing if we don't stand up for. If we don't lash back and say, you're ridiculous and this isn't true or this didn't happen, they feel like that that's necessary. And I do understand that as a. As a parent, I think I would feel the same way if someone was attacking, you know, my children online, that you would want to respond. But. But sometimes it can just keep the circle going. You know, that's really what these people want. They want someone to fight back with them. And then they can say, oh, well, now, you know, Frank called in and said this or Frankie said that and blah, blah, blah. And they're just covering up. And it's all for clicks. It's all for. It's all everybody trying to be Internet famous or trying to make some extra money.
- [23:11]
A
So, well, and the cut, you know, again, it's like covering up what we all like. You said this. This happened so quickly. Right. Less than 90 days. He pleads guilty. We see the camera of the car pulling up to the house. We know she never left the house. So it's like there's. The evidence is so cut and dry here. You probably couldn't ask for a better sit where the only thing people should be out there talking about is the tragedy of this situation, of this father killing his daughters and his wife and. And she was pregnant. I mean, it just. It makes me so upset to. To hear that they have had to endure this because it's just absolutely unbelievable to me. But I'm thinking a lot about the Savannah Guthrie situation and Nancy Guthrie, you know, missing, and the fact that of course they don't have answers. But look at what happened and the scrutiny that the family was under. Right. Right from minute one, everybody thought, oh, well, it had to do with the fact that somebody must know Savannah or somebody's after Savannah. And then it turned into, you know, maybe it's the sister, maybe it's the brother in law, maybe.
- [24:20]
B
And so there's even stuff out there about Savannah saying maybe it's her or something somehow involved or her husband or. Yeah.
- [24:29]
A
And. And the fact that in that case, there has been no arrest. There has been a crime that's not solved. We still don't have any, you know, information about the whereabouts of Nancy or her body at this point. And so I'm wondering how, you know, that that connection and if. And if that watching that in the news also brings this back up for them, because they see that this family's being attacked and they're going through probably the most horrific time of their whole life.
- [24:58]
B
I think that almost any time they turn on the news, they're seeing some stories that get them, you know, right in the heart and. And that make them sort of relive this and think about it. And I know they've touched base with some other folks who have been through this kind of thing. I know one of the fathers from Sandy Hook, I think, was somebody that they had talked to before, because, again, you know, there's all the online stuff about that never really happened and, you know, that kind of thing. So I. I do think that. I don't know if they are comforted maybe by talking to other people who've been through a similar thing. I would like to think that maybe that does help them a little bit. But I'm sure that it's also hard just in general to ever turn on the news or open the newspaper or look at anything, because almost every day, there's going to be something in there that reminds them of what they've been through.
- [26:03]
A
Well, and there's also this culture that we live in today that we're almost apologizing to the bad guys. Right. There's this. And I mean, just a couple days ago in Chicago, that beautiful student from Loyola University gets shot on the lakefront. And now today, it comes out that the newspaper at Loyola University is apologizing for calling her alleged killer an illegal immigrant. It's like we're apologizing for the words we used after this girl is gunned down on the lakefront walking with her friends. There's just, like, no words for this. It's like, what are we doing here as a society that we need to have this, I don't know, protective nature for the ones who've done wrong. And yet we're victimizing, again, the true
- [26:55]
B
victims, the real victims. It's sad and something that we all need to take ownership of and think about how we can be better.
- [27:07]
A
Yeah, I mean, I'm a former prosecutor. I'm a criminal defense attorney now, so I'm normally on the side of the person that's accused of a crime. And I'm there to uphold their rights and make sure they have due process, but never one time would I ever think about being disrespectful to a victim or family.
- [27:27]
B
Right.
- [27:27]
A
Yeah.
- [27:28]
B
You're just there to make sure the system's working properly and that people are doing their jobs. And that's. That's what I explained to people, too, because I do some criminal defense work, and they're like, how do you defend somebody if you know they're guilty? And like, look, it's just about due process and about making sure that. That the laws are upheld and that everyone is doing their job and what they're supposed to do in doing it as they follow the law. Other than that, it's. It doesn't mean that you're against victims or that you are in favor of people who hurt other people.
- [28:03]
A
Did the lawsuits that just came down in these verdicts in the social media cases help the cause of Shanann's family? Does it help Frank and Sandy in any way? I know that they're very different legal holdings, but is there any sort of opening here that you think is at least bringing the conversation to light?
- [28:24]
B
I think so, and, you know, remains to be seen as to. To how much it will affect it. But. But I do think in any time that these big social media platforms are taken to task and held accountable for behaviors, it gives some hope to the idea that, you know, maybe a lot of smart people can. Can get together in a room. I don't know if that's Congress or not, who we're talking about when you say a whole bunch of smart people,
- [28:54]
A
but have you been to an airport?
- [28:55]
B
Yeah. Let's. Let's get some people together and really. And really work on this. I think that it does shed just, you know, open or I should say opens the door just a little bit to that knowing that other people are having success. And so I think it's a little bit of a. An opening in the armor, so to speak, that social media has always had all this protection. I think they're realizing that there's going to be less of it in the future.
- [29:27]
A
Well, that's a good thing. Tom, tell me how her family would want Shannon Shannan and her daughters to
- [29:33]
B
be remembered, just to be remembered for what they were just really, you know, Shannan was so vivacious, so motivated, so excited about life. She cared about other people. She was a warm individual. And they just want to make sure none of that gets lost. I think that's one of the things that's so hurtful is when they hear people say things about, well, she wasn't a good mom or whatever. And the people saying that obviously never have met her. They don't know anything about her. They're. Who knows what they're basing that on? But. But they would want her remembered that way, which is truly what she was like. And then, you know, with the grandchildren, of course, just what people to see them as innocent and curious and smart and loving and, you know, they were just such a great family, and that's what makes all this that much more tragic. Yeah.
- [30:30]
A
Yeah. And even. And in. In their father's words, they were still worried about what was happening to their mother right before he killed them. So, again, this was a circumstance that is awful. And my heart goes out to the family and to everybody listening. Let's all do better. Let's do a better job about what we look at, what we click on, what we respond to. And let's think about the people on the other side of those phones or computer screens, because they are real and they have feelings. So, Tom, thank you for joining me today.
- [30:59]
B
All right, well, thank you so much.
- [31:00]
A
Thank you for joining me on another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. You can find us on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple. Also, we'd love to hear from you. Please send us your thoughts, questions, theories, and maybe we'll answer them right on air. Thank you for joining me.