Normally we’re less interested in opinions than in facts at TCRS.
The Chris Watts case isn’t a normal case.
There is a place for speculation in true crime, but speculation needs to be informed and anchored in the patterns, personalities and dynamics of a particular case to be meaningful or worthwhile. Typically, speculation needs to be limited.
In a criminal trial, a prosecutor can rap the knuckles of his opposition counsel [or witnesses] by objecting to “speculation”, ditto defense counsel. For the most part we try to run the same sort of tight ship in true crime. What can be proven? What does the evidence say? What do we know for a fact? Where does it take us?
As a true crime narrator, I try to weigh any speculation down with a host of references, facts and underlying data. Once anchored, we can set the ship adrift and see which way the tide draws it.
The Watts case is an enigma because despite having a tsunami of information, we really don’t seem to have anything concrete – about anything.
The five questions below are meant to check your knowledge, insight and understanding in this case. If you’re able to answer any of these questions instantly, chances are you’ve still not developed the capacity to really think critically and constructively about this case. Good true crime makes us better thinkers, and ultimately, better people.
Incidentally, there are no right or wrong answers to these 5 questions, just varying degrees of being better, or closer to reality [whatever that might be]. So, without further ado, put on your thinking caps and lets get started:
1. Do you think the Rzuceks saw the autopsies? Motivate your answer.
2. Do you think the Watts family saw the autopsies? Motivate your answer.
3. Are the emails between Kessinger and Watts in the Discovery Documents? If so, where?
5. Were the resources used in this case commensurate to the crime committed? Motivate your answer.
The best responses will be acknowledged, and used in a guest post.