What did the DA mean when he said he had “a partial motive” for the Watts murders?

Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke told reporters yesterday that he knows why Chris Watts did what he did – partially. He said he’d be happy to talk about what he believed [not what he knew, believed] post sentencing. What did he mean? And why is it so sensitive he couldn’t just say it there and then?

Fullscreen capture 20181107 171736-001

The area of the transcript [which I will post more on in due course] that deals with the why of the crime is provided below:

ROURKE: We believe we have a partial motive. I’m not sure if it’s the entirety of the motive, but I will be happy to comment on that following sentencing. Ask me again [on] … the day after, the day of sentencing. I will be happy to answer that question. At this point, that’s getting a little too far into the investigation at least as we sit right now.

In true crime, how often do we hear about “partial” motives? It’s part of the motive but not all? Not often, and especially not often from prosecutors. It’s prosecutors who have to confidently make it abundantly clear what happened and why.

No one has been on top of the Watts case as much as Rourke has [arguably with the exception of this site], but he has been able to have vital first-hand encounters, discussions etc. with the accused and he’s been able to review the actual evidence. He also knows what’s in those still sealed autopsy reports.

So what’s going on?

I’m speculating, and speculating on an area we know very little about, but Chris Watts’ sexuality [and suggestions about his bisexuality] seems to fit what Rourke is saying about partial motives and beliefs.

Being bisexual does partially explain wanting to not be married, wanting to not be a father and perhaps [but not necessarily] no longer wanting to have sex with his wife. In other words, half of the equation [but not entirely] is explained by the bisexuality.

Being bisexual is also about the beliefs one has of oneself as a person, and of the beliefs one has of society’s view of you. As noted in the TWO FACE narratives, male bisexuality is a particularly taboo orientation even in progressive society’s. Even homosexual men can’t stand bisexual men because of an impression that they’re loosey goosey and just can’t make up their minds. Bisexual women, by the same token, are considered by some to be highly sexualized and highly sexualized and so are prized – if that’s the term – by some. In any event, bisexual women don’t experience nearly the same discrimination.

So it stands to reason, if you’re a bisexual man who might want to keep it under wraps, especially in a masculine-type work environment like auto mechanics or the oil industry.

My own impression of Watts was that he was trying too hard to be a regular dude in his own family. He was playing constantly at being Mr. Nice Guy, but who he really was was eating him up.

A handy example of a bisexual criminal who murdered his wife and was convicted is Michael Peterson  from The Staircase documentary series.

If the bisexuality is what Rourke’s referring to, and if that’s only a partial explanation, where’s the rest? And with no prospect of a court case, will we ever find out? A lot of the answer to why resides in the first two narratives that are already out there. TWO FACE TWO POLLYANNAS will be out by the end of this week. It’s the purpose of this site and these narratives to plumb the entirety of the Watts story, and nothing short of that.

More on this topic:

Chris Watts: Bisexual or Not?

Chris Watts: The Psychology of Bisexuality

3 thoughts on “What did the DA mean when he said he had “a partial motive” for the Watts murders?

  1. That’s like saying being a psychopath was his partial motive. I think this guy was so empty and soulless, he was just shopping around so to speak, looking for narcissistic supply, and he didn’t care if it was male or female because they weren’t real to him at all.

    Like

    • When you call someone a narcissist or a psychopath, are you happy that that’s telling you exactly and entirely who they are? If so, what label would you give yourself?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: Christopher Watts: What else do we know? [UPDATED] | True Crime Rocket Science / #tcrs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s