The mainstream media, and most [but not all] covering the Chris Watts case on YouTube are referring to big chunks of Watts’ Second Confession as if it’s fact. When CNN’s headline [on Google Search] reads Chris Watts’ 4-year-old pleaded for her life, attorney says it reads as fact.
When People report on Bella’s “last words” – ‘Daddy, No!’: Chris Watts Hears Daughter’s Haunting Last Words ‘Every Day’ in Prison – and Dr. Phil does a show PREMISED on these last words [words Watts’ tells us are her last words – and enough in media and on social media recycle this premise, then it begins to appear as fact.
Is it fact?
We must remember this hasn’t been tested, examined, argued or verified in court. A judge and jury haven’t ruled on it, or even thought about it. Evidence hasn’t been led in the proper forum in support or to contradict it. And let’s be clear, a Dr. Phil show or a confession from a man who murdered his family, lied to that family, lied to his witness, lied to the media, lied on a polygraph test [about everything], and lied throughout his first “confession” including to his own father, this hardly constitutes evidence. It’s testimony. It’s a version. That’s all it is.
But what if it is true? And what if there is convincing evidence to prove that it is?
Isn’t there convincing evidence in the “living shadows” conspiracy? Was the conspiracy never a conspiracy at all, instead civilians and armchair detectives stumbled on a game changer that law enforcement [and everyone else] missed?
If this is the case why hasn’t the mainstream media reported on the shadow theories? If it’s such a game changer, why hasn’t the media said anything about it? Why hasn’t law enforcement released a statement?
On the one hand, Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke has referred to this as part of his contention, his assumption, that Watts’ confession is legitimate, or mostly truthful. According to USAToday:
Rourke said some pieces of evidence match Watts’ most recent confession, including footage from a neighbor’s security camera that shows another shadow aside from Watts’ by his truck when he was loading Shanann’s body into the back seat.
In the video released by the Weld County District Attorney’s Office, Watts is seen standing by his work truck when another shadow appears to be moving toward him, and Watts leans down to pick something up, likely one of the girls.
That video “would be consistent with his statements that the girls were alive when they left the house and walked out to the truck,” Rourke said.
What Rourke is saying is that Watts’ statement is consistent with the “appearance” of a shadow which doesn’t seem to be Watts’ moving towards him. Separately Rourke says, “I’m assuming what he is telling is truthful”, which suggests he believes the shadow theory as well. But he doesn’t say that. He says the scenario is consistent with the appearance of the shadows.
The article goes on to emphasize that Watts has never testified under oath, with the threat of perjury. In other words, whenever he’s spoken – other than the polygraph test where he had to authorize it – there haven’t been legal consequences – arguably, attached to his spoken words, as crazy as that sounds. And Rourke has maintained, even after the Second Confession Watts’ consistency in another area – his lack of real remorse:
“I don’t think that everything that came out of his mouth during those interviews was the truth because I honestly don’t believe that this monster has the ability to have remorse at all.”
None of the bold text [referring to the commission of the murders of Shan’ann and the children respectively] resonated with me, although certain aspects certainly stood out [such as Shan’ann feet thudding on the stairs]. What did stand out for me was this, and it comes at very end of the marathon interview. When I heard Watts’ answer, for the first time I considered the scenario of the children alive and taken to CERVI 319 as a real possibility.
The area circle in red can be heard at 1:05:39 in the last half hour of the five-and-a-half-hour interview [Part 2 of the Enhanced Audio Clip].
LEE: So do you think if we would have said…what do you think…?
Lee is asking what should they have said to him that would have gotten Watts to tell the truth, or do so sooner.
WATTS [Long pause]: If you would have said…if…the video had showed them in the truck…you probably would have had to have lied…You said you saw the kids in the truck…I mean, you’d have to lie to get me to say it…but, it might have been that.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF “LIVING” SHADOW/S
The best evidence in support of “living” shadows is at exactly 1:00 in the clip below. In order to get the full effect, it’s better to view the video in real time, as it were, but to hover the cursor over the 1:00 mark and click repeatedly back to it.
https://youtu.be/qmhlmdCxkc8?t=60
When viewed again and again it does seem convincing. It does appear as if a shadow is approaching Watts and he bends down to pick it up. I won’t do a complete analysis of that here, that deserves a complete chapter in a separate narrative [TWO FACE: ANNIHILATION], but I will spend a little more time dealing with the evidence against it.
EVIDENCE AGAINST “LIVING” SHADOWS
Those who claim the surveillance video is “clear”, “convincing” and “unambiguous” are looking through a tiny keyhole, fuzzing out the background, and making the case that tiny shapes within the fuzzy keyhole area are absolutely clear evidence of an extraordinary game changer.
If a UFO and an alien is ever positively identified and confirmed, that will be a massive game changer for our understanding of the universe, the existence of God and our place in the cosmos.
The shadows are a little like that. A single moment that could be something that changes everything. And this is the size of the viewfinder.
Seeing frozen images doesn’t do justice to the claim and most important, one doesn’t see the shadow advancing from the left of the frame, while Watts moves in and bends down from the right.
What I want to emphasize here is just how blown up that little circle [above] is in these screengrabs. It’s so big Watts is almost reduced to stickman, and his body becomes jagged and irregular.
This is the original view. When I first viewed this footage I mistake a “tail” under the right rear wheel of the truck as a cat flicking its tail. I only connected the tail to the idly flapping flag after watching it several times, and especially when the lighting increases as the dawn breaks.
In one of the videos, even the shadows are ascribed identities. One shadow is Bella, and the other is Ceecee because it’s “shorter”.
it’s interesting that the shadows “move” towards Watts in both instances when he’s bending down. This suggests the possibility that the two elements are contingent; in other words if he wasn’t bending down there would be no shadow moving towards him.
Again, I don’t wish to explain or elaborate on this in more detail right here, right now, but I will do so in ANNIHILATION.
Is Watts “settling” his children, who are both alive, inside the truck? If one of the children was murdered with a blanket, why don’t we see this blanket? Doesn’t it have a shadow too? Or was Ceecee “wearing it”, but it was so titled wrapped around her it had no cape to throw a shadow?
Let’s face it, settling living children and settling dead bodies could take a similar amount of time. While the one scenario would involve making the children comfortable in sleeping quarters without their car seats, and arguably in a vehicle they’ve never been in before, the other scenario would involve making dead bodies not visible, concealing them from casual view.
We also have some useful footage to examine, in terms of how the shadows spool and watercolor, when Watts pulls the truck away and walks back. We can see the shadows splaying out on his approach as well as on his return to the truck.
In the image below Watts shadow moves outward in a triangular shape, with the narrow point of the pyramid ending under his heel.
As he moves right beside the light source, his shadow whips around to the side. It’s not completely clear in the screengrab, so have a look at the shadow dance in the video as well at 4:53 and again at 5:09.
This is Watts stepping back out onto the driveway for the last time. Notice the shadows are dragging to his right, towards the surveillance camera, and there appears to be a double-effect. Also the shadow isn’t long but kind of a squat, puddle-shape.
Just one short step later and one shadow already swoops around and begins to stretch out ahead of him. Meanwhile a second shadow [is there someone else floating in the air?] smudges vaguely to his right.
Watts went to a lot of trouble to hide three bodies at CERVI 319. In theory he could have dumped the bodies on the side of the road somewhere, and it would have been much more difficult to connect them to him, except for the problem that doing so would let the world know immediately that a triple homicide had just happened.
The effort Watts made to move his wife so far from the scene of the crime, and the cleaning effort in the aftermath, and the many lies, these are all a mismatch to the glib suggestion that Watts casually took his children along for the ride, had no idea what he intended, and casually killed both of them, allowing one to witness the death of the other. There also just happened to be two oil tanks, one for each child, a thought that apparently didn’t occur to Watts on his way there, and apparently not when he was planning to go there first thing early on Sunday evening [and arguably the machinations for that plan was set in motion as early as Friday midday].
We know Watts changed his clothing, possibly not once but twice, before returning home, and we also know Watts used “plausible deniability” to stage this crime. The staging of the wedding ring is a good example inside the home, the claim that he was “loading tools” and that’s why he backed into the driveway was his plausible account for that scenario and Watts work detail at CERVI 319 was a cover for what he was actually doing out there early on Monday morning.
He uses plausible deniability to suggest things that aren’t true, and in this case it includes many technical things, such as the Vivint evidence, GPS data, cell phone logs including calls and texts to Shan’ann after she was dead.
None of this data proves Watts did anything. Instead it tends to prove he didn’t. Now we can apparently add the technical addition of discombobulated shadows in the surveillance video that “proves” the children were alive. This is “proof” that Watts didn’t kill them in the home, and supposedly casts doubt on the premeditated nature of the murder.
What can we extrapolate from the psychology of this approach? What sort of criminal psychology may be at work here? Well, it’s quite simple.
If the shadow/s isn’t Bella or Ceecee, and if they weren’t alive, then the entire scenario about a murder at CERVI 319 is just another fiction in a long list of lies. Make no mistake, an awful lot hinges on what we’re seeing [or not seeing] in those shadows on the driveway. So the #1 Reason Watts may be telling the truth may also be the #1 Reason he’s lying.
Wow….. the newer housing developments in Colorado sure have close neighbors. You could reach through a window to borrow a cup of sugar. Suffice to say those girls couldn’t have been screaming and or crying at that hour without someone hearing them.
I thought the same.
I read the shadows theory and watched the footage on Armchair Detective’s YouTube channel many weeks ago, long before anyone had any inkling that Watts would give a second “confession”.
I never believed it because:
1. I saw nothing that I could determine as live children.
2. The channel had also shown pixels and splotches that were supposed to be Nichol Kessinger with a long ponytail carrying live children and I couldn’t see those either.
3. I thought it was ridiculous that Watts would be out in the driveway with live toddlers and a dead wife in the truck.
3a. I believed the YouTuber was a rabble rouser bent on receiving donations and new subscribers.
4. I had already read the Two Face series and believed in the premeditation theory and the children killed first on Aug 12 hypothesis (FBI and van der Leek). These theories covered all the facts on all levels: empirical, psychological, sociological, etc.
5. Experts viewed that footage intently and saw no shadows. It was only thousands of emails from the mob which turned their heads.
The Nichol Kessinger thing was pretty preposterous, and he should have gotten into serious trouble for that.
I agree. It was libelous and slanderous.
Thanks for pointing out that there is another shadow that they could say is the second girl, I watched it so many times and didn’t find that. I’d make a lousy investigator.
AD took that video down, the one with the ponytail. He said the reason was he has so many looking at him now that the DA confirmed his shadows that he has to make sure everything he posts is fact. I about fell off the chair, so he’s openly admitting he’s putting shit out there. That statement right there would feed a good case for defamation. He knows it’s not her but accused her anyways. How irresponsible and borders on criminal
Absolutely !
I think he got a prompt cease and desist letter from Nichol’s defamation lawyer. I bet he’s still sending plenty of those out for her.
He says NK filed a privacy complaint to YouTube and he had to blur her out. He says only parents, NK herself or lawyer can file privacy complaint but according to some the complaint can only be filed by the person who has their privacy violated. If that’s true than only NK could. If it was her I wish she would have taken that further legally
I thought about her ability to pursue legal recourse too, Mitzi. I read a little about her lawyer and the types of cases he takes – he wouldn’t back down if given the chance to sue the pants off him. The fact that AD lives in another country is probably saving his ass – that and the fact he has no money worth suing for I’m sure.. Neither NK or her dad have the funds to pay for a defamation case upfront, which could be complicated and pricey. I wonder if AD will accuse others of a crime moving forward, as he seems to do with reckless abandon.
I think that the video linked has been edited to show the same shadow sequence twice.
For one, after he appears to lift the shadow (which I believe is one of his girls) and disappears past the truck cab the passenger side mirror light either goes off or disappears. The light goes off at the exact same time in both sequences in the link.
Secondly if you view the supposed Raw video portion of the link the video seems to jump in video around the 7:36 – 7:37 time, the passenger mirror light jumps on and the flag in the neighbor’s yard shows signs of the loop.
Third, if I take a screen grab of both shadow sequences, the shadows appear identical.
Fourth, there is a longer 51 min video on youtube that has the whole video sequence supposedly edited from the DA’s website and I can only see the shadow sequence 1 time.
The video showing 2 shadows is definitely looped. Gray Hughes investigates posted the video with shadows saying wow he couldn’t believe it (he really really dislikes defective sofa man) but yes the girls were alive. Then half way through the comments someone comes on and points out why it’s looped and the gray Hughes dude ended up conceding and agreeing it was in fact only 1 shadow. The video was looped.
Have I mentioned before that I wish defective sofa would be moved to a secluded island that has no communications with the world? lol
The jury in my head is still deliberating whether those little girls left their house alive that Monday morning. But a couple thoughts in my mind:
One of my favorite true crime shows is – “SEE NO EVIL”. Murders are solved using CCTV footage. Without the footage, the murders likely wouldn’t have been solved. The show is not fiction, it’s real, the footage they show is real. As the show goes, LE uses all crime solving tools available including CCTV from several sources from multiple locations. I can’t help but wonder if LE bothered to track CWs truck that morning on CCTV. If they had done so, would we have seen the girls alive in the back seat? Did they just settle for GPS readings? On the show I reference, they do show LE getting clear videos that show whether a perp is alone in their vehicle or not, I’ve seen LE do that frequently on that show. Again, the footage on the show is real, it’s not a fake drama like CSI. It’s been said that once LE had a confession and the prosecutors had their guilty plea – that was it! They packed everything up and called it a day, no further investigation! Yet, now they go to the prison to interview Watts, post-conviction, to get a better understanding of the crime and why it happened!? SMH
The other thing on my mind – when viewing the video of the truck in the drive-way I noticed at about the 11:00 position there’s a gap/hole through the back wheel. Wouldn’t you see whoever walked by the truck through that little hole/gap first? I don’t see the girls through that gap, I don’t even see Chris walk by that gap when we see him walking around either. Odd.
In the discovery there are several references to footage. At least one other neighbor’s I remember. Nothing we were privy to but I’m assuming if anything can be seen there aren’t live kids since as of Feb 18th the FBI clearly doesn’t believe they were alive.
The “gap/hole” behind the wheel is an illusion. It is a brick or rock on the garage illuminated by the lights.
What Watts said to Tammy Lee did give me a moment’s pause, but turned sideways, it supports just the opposite. It also could be interpreted as a fishing expedition on the part of Watts, to see if he could determine, from the responses of the law enforcement officers present, whether they in fact had evidence to the contrary.
I do not believe the girls were taken alive to Cervi. Too much evidence suggests that they were deceased long before their mother even arrived home early that fateful morning. If they were taken alive in that work truck, why did their bedding have a foul odor, according to what Watts told NK? No, their little bodies spent some time dead in their beds, whether they were killed there, or killed elsewhere and put there.
He also washed and changed the girls’ bedding Monday night – an unnecessary chore if there’s nothing to cover up there. But the only somewhat positive result of the new version is that it eliminates all doubt that Shan’ann had anything to do with the murders and might lay to rest those conspiracy theories. The Rzuceks already knew that, though, and this story makes it harder on them.
I made a comment earlier I don’t see here yet, but if or when it’s posted I have an addendum. I made reference to a little gap/hole through the trucks back wheel on the video where it’s backed in the driveway while he loaded the bodies. It looks like you can see through the back wheel to the side Chris was on. I just watched a different video showing the truck actually backing up and what I saw is just a part of the garage, not a hole or a gap, so I’m not crazy after all lol. Glad I saw the truck backing up because it was driving me crazy as to why the gap didn’t show anyone’s shadow as they walked by.
The one thing that has occurred to me: In footage of Watts viewing the driveway surveillance with Nathan Trinastich and Officer Coonrad, there is a moment where Chris looks so frightened that he turns his head away and begins rocking with anxiety. As there isn’t much to see in terms of what’s being loaded into the truck (he tells Coonrad it’s water jugs, backpack, cooler, tools, etc) one MIGHT make an argument that he’s fearing that his picking up the children and putting them in the truck at 5 something AM is now being viewed, which blows his story about Shannan and the kids leaving.
I don’t like this because it undoes all the good theory of NVDL and FBI. So I need to refute it and recall that Coder and Lee hadn’t seen this on the tape and were certain he’d loaded bodies.
CBH what do you think is worse than Watts loading living children into his work truck?
Loading dead children.
I too went over and over the video, which I bookmarked right after it was released – before it got “doctored” or edited by anyone. I did not see an extra shadow then, and I do not see one now. After pausing and rewinding and playing the crucial times it looks to me as Watts walks back and forth you really cannot make out much of anything. There is a little extra bulk to him toward the end, and it could be that he was bending to pick up his book bag – the book bag that contained his laptop and other items that was returned to the mudroom – and caused the dog to alert there. Also Watts walks with confidence and purpose and intention. Having to navigate two distressed children doesn’t fit with his purposeful strides. At one point he looks directly into Nate’s camera (like a bug caught in a headlight). I think he’s very much aware of what Nate’s camera is picking up and as such he’s used his truck in that exact spot to block what he’s doing (which I know we’ve already gone over). It’s also the same distraction he used when he opened the Lexus car door – and left it open.
I’m not quite sure what you are saying above “the #1 reason Watts may be telling the truth may also be the #1 reason he’s lying” but I think it’s akin to the sound of one hand clapping. It’s a paradox. What I think you mean by that is the truth to Watts and a lie are one and the same. You are so good Nick, it’s just unbelievable how good.
I’m not quite sure what you are saying above “the #1 reason Watts may be telling the truth may also be the #1 reason he’s lying”>If the shadow is a child running around, then it means Watts is telling the truth. If it’s not, he’s not.
What I meant was is Watt’s truth a lie. Both sides of a hand is still one hand, etc.
“You are so good Nick, it’s just unbelievable how good.”
My thoughts exactly! Nick, I think this post is brilliant. It is so thought provoking. You were born to do this. Nobody else can touch you on your level of analysis in true crime. Thank you again for all the work you put in here.
Still seems unbelievable to me that after achieving the murder of shanann so quietly he would risk one of the kids screaming on the driveway, or risk them bolting out the other side of the truck clearly in Nate’s camera view. It’s possible he’d take that chance but seems less possible with the amount of planning he did
Mitzi – absolutely! Another thing that I can’t get past is how he sent SW pics from earlier, that he’d already sent before instead of new ones. However, the point you made above is about as solid a reason as one can find. Logic and common sense would dictate that he had to eliminate the variables when it came to killing SW, and two children are major variables.
Yeah I think it’s important that he says “if you had LIED” and saw the girls in the truck. Just like they “lied” in a way by supplying Watts w/ the SW did it theory. If he had just said “if you told me you saw the girls” I might give it some credence but the fact that he says “lied” is him being accidentally revealing.
I have been thinking the past few days why on earth the DA would corroborate this when he seems like an intelligent guy and I’ve decided it’s probably because A. Watts looks bad and SW is cleared and B. people will stop emailing him Armchair Detective videos. In the press conference after the hearing when he’s getting questions about “the letter,” he’s very clearly annoyed with the rumor mill. I don’t believe he believes they were alive for one second and he doesn’t want thousands of messages with arrows and shadows. I just wish he would tell that to the family, who seem to believe it.
That’s what I was getting at. He’s talking in riddles. He’s saying if you tell me a lie then I’ll go with that. Why not say if you tell me what really happened I’ll go with that. It’s backwards. Also he’s not taking responsibility for what actually happened. Tell me a lie and I’ll agree with you. Then the same thing could be said the other way – tell me the truth and I’ll agree with you. But we still won’t know if it’s the truth or not because he’s intentionally confusing his inquisitors. It’s very very twisted, by confusing the truth with a lie, he manages to confuse the listener and that’s the point. So he’s “pathological” or he’s clever and I’m going to go with clever and pathological because he’s locked up now, why not tell the truth? As for Rourke, he doesn’t know either, and is hedging his bets. He’s done his job – he got him put away for several life sentences, whether Watts is telling the truth now or now is of no concern to him. If Watt’s parents don’t know the truth then you think he’s going to tell Coder, Baumhover and Lee?
For what it’s worth, Bill Finley asked AD to stop commenting on his edited and doctored video and he hasn’t so Finley dropped it. Maybe Finley knows it’s edited and doctored, I don’t know. Just watched Dr. Phil on youtube, and Sandi says she can’t stand the thought that Bella was pushed down in the dirt. That wouldn’t be consistent with Watt’s story that he smothered Bella in the back seat of his truck after smothering CeCe. Sandi also said she can’t stand the thought that they were still warm from their beds when put in the oil tanks. Beds? Were they warm?
I am not saying I believe his version but I do want to make one point after reading this. Let’s say just for argument sake this is exactly how it went down. I do not agree that it would alter the fact that this was premeditated. The complete opposite in fact. For him to claim he had no clue he was going to kill them until he got to Cervi is absurd. The girls had no shoes on, were not in their car seats, in pajamas, he had nothing packed in terms of needs for children that age and he was going to work after he dumped his wife. Were the kids supposed to just toddle around after him all day with no shoes on and in pajamas? And I highly doubt that children are even allowed to be on those sites for safety and insurance purposes. And in the 45 minutes it took for him to drive there he could not come up with a better plan than killing them? In this scenario he gives, if he is trying to give it to absolve him of premeditation it still fails. Because in his latest story, he drove away with those babies with absolutely no evidence that he intended for them to return. So I do not have a clue on why he thinks this helps him. In fact him killing them at the house would have fit better for this elusive crime of passion he wants us all to foolishly believe.
So I do not have a clue on why he thinks this helps him.>>>This version minimizes what really happened, even if it seems worse than the previous version. Reality is even worse than this version.
But it does not take away the premeditation element. Maybe I am getting his goals mixed up. Maybe it’s not about disproving premeditation at all, he just does not want what really happened to come out because like it’s what you are saying, the truth is worse than what he just shared. That is scary.
@Sass Exactly my thoughts. I’ve given this case much thought, probably way too much thought for the past 6 months or so. I believe CW had every intention of killing his entire family. His trail, which he is trying to clean up now, is a trail of blood and destruction. I think his only reasoning for agreeing to do this interview was to garner sympathy to seek a reduced sentence; he mentioned his mother believes he has a shot at that. Everything CW did points to premeditation. I also think CW has read enough of the news and theories to form a new version. CW is a pathological liar and sociopath; he still believes he can fool everyone. At least one of the girls were killed at the home. Perhaps he didn’t plan to kill Bella initially but did anyway. But quite honestly it’s looking more like CW killed all family members at the home and he gives away clues to that in this new “confession.” I don’t even think CW had any conversation with SW. He straddled her and she thought he wanted sex and he strangled her. But I’m hesitant to believe the killing happened in the master bedroom. It’s possible he attacked her as soon as she came home. Rourke by all accounts failed to ask CW the right questions or bring in someone who specializes in sociopaths. I’d really like to see Dr. G the medical examiner give her opinion about the autopsy reports from all 3 victims and a panel of experts give their opinions about all of CW’s interviews not Dr. Phil’s BS but criminal profilers, criminal psychologists and forensic scientists.
Watts is still going with the snapped scenario, he’s lying about the girls being put into the truck alive because if they are taken out dead that shows premeditation. Also Gray Hughes showed how the video goes in a loop and that what even he thought was two shadows is just one shadow being shown twice. That video is heavily altered, there’s even a part where Chris goes back into the garage from the truck but yet the video didn’t show him coming out, so I think the authorities gave us a redacted version and they might just have him taking all 3 bodies out, I don’t think we will ever be privy to all the evidence they do have.
Okay, but this version does not show someone who just snapped. He had a better chance of proving that if he said he just killed everyone after he killed Shannan. Putting the girls in the car with no evidence he planned for their return shows premeditation. Especially because he arranged for himself to be alone at Cervi319. Or, one can argue the plan was to kill them all at the house but since Shannan’s flight came in late he lost 3 hours and had to move part of the murder scene to Cervi319. He then claims he was so full of rage that morning that he was ready to kill everyone in his path yet his co-workers all survived this wrath when they finally showed up at Cervi. They even said he was exactly the same just dressed odd. I am lost on what he is really trying to do here. But we have to also remember he had no clue they were coming down to speak with him. This could be the best he could do on the spot.
Nick,
Few questions for you:
1. Based on your experience, do you think LE has exactly the same tools (a naked eye inspection of the video) at their disposal, or something more sophisticated? I would like to believe that they have more sophisticated tools including running simulations that can estimate the actual height of the objects, etc.
2. Do you think the LE has scoured CCTV evidences during the 45 minute drive – all houses, shops, etc. I would assume that a high security premise like Andarko would also have CCTVs. If so, why are they holding the information back?
3. Any comment on the front door being not latched normally but just shut by the hook at the top? To me that’s a clue that he did not want the girls to run out onto the road while the operation was in progress. Why else would one do that before leaving for work?
Thoughts?
I don’t think the latch had anything to do with the children, and I’m not sure Watts had anything to do with putting up the latch in the first place. If he did it was to keep people out, not in.
One thing that gets me is, why did he take Bella and Ceces blankies and toys? That part I’m not able to figure out? Because he didn’t take (or he at least didn’t dump) Shananns phone purse ring etc, with the blankies and toys.
He took them or rather removed them in a premeditated act to set up the scenario that Shan’ann was taking the kids to a friend’s house. It was one of the first things he told the Officer – as he rushed to Bella’s room and opened a drawer and said Bella has two blankets (also trying to confuse) and the kids blankets are gone. He didn’t want to dump the ring somewhere because it would be worth something to sell it and it was part of the staging that she just left the symbol of their marriage, and him, behind. Some things he was planning on dealing with after he came home on the 13th. They should have asked him if he turned off her phone, but then he would’t have had an answer for that since he was “asleep.”
SW phone was 50% charged, you would expect it to be almost fully charged when they found it, if she went to bed at 2.00 and put her phone in the charger next to her bed. CW said he threw it under the pillows after he killed her. Any thoughts?
Yes. Perhaps she never made it bed where she would have put the phone on the charger.
I remember reading in the original discovery that one of the officers noticed a camera that I believe was across the street that may also pick up the Watts’s driveway. He got the flash drive from the owner. Was it ever said if that footage showed anything? This was different I believe than the neighbor who said their camera just picked up a bug on the lens that morning.
Chris Watts has shown zero remorse for killing his family members. In his TV interview and first initial interview with investigators he laughed, smirked and displayed dupers delight. He was by all accounts extremely happy with himself and with what he accomplished. He no longer had “problems” holding him back and he was free to do what he wanted with his life and continue shacking up with NK. This so called “second confession” is just another spin on the truth. Killing his family is something CW clearly thought about at least all summer. I think once CW realizes he has no chance at freedom and how NK stabbed him in the back and clearly manipulated him he will give one final “confession.” I believe NK’s role in these murders is far deeper than either CW or NK want us to know.
In answer to your response on the other forum you shut down. I am not saying he is let off the hook. People want to think their loved ones are in a better place after they die and not in the hell they suffered while living. You can want both justice and peace for the dead. I don’t even know what the point of the latest post was. Of course her family feels that way. Of couse we want to know when he began planning. You’ve already sold into all of SW faults for the reason poor Chris pretty much had no choice. I have heard no new insights from you about that for a while. You have stated to see Chris as a multifaceted person while only seeing her parents and SW as the labels you have bought into for them. I am not sure why you get so defensive when someone has a differing view. I have appreciated some of the commenters on this post even if I didn’t agree with them.
I was trying to show why it would be normal for Sandra to see a baby and not a fetus. It appeared you were questioning her. Just bc that doesn’t match up with your narrative of them embellishing so be it. Common sense need not apply to this forum apparently. A good writer would take the challenge but you just insult and ban. I am no victim but you should look at yourself and see why you can’t take what you perceive as criticism without attacking the people who take time to read your blogs. This makes you appear very unprofessional and causes me to question your ability to evaluate this case. You don’t need to ban me I won’t be posting any more. You can read from like minded individuals and refuse to consider all the facets of the victims and perpetrator in this case.
You refuse to consider all the facets of the victims and perpetrator in this case.>>>Because that’s what 6 months of daily coverage on TCRS and the 6 books on this case are all about, refusing to consider all the facets of this case. Wow, you really hit the nail on the head on that one!
I don’t even know what the point of the latest post was. >>>Yes, and that’s the problem. The title of the post was about how sentiment is the antithesis of cogent analysis, but then you make it your mission to try to argue the opposite. I’m glad you’ve clarified your position, because it’s very clear you don’t belong here. And although you like many others confidently declare you are leaving and never coming back, you all do, you always do, and you all try to sneak back in using fake names and fake avatars. Paragons of honesty and sincerity, aren’t we.
This makes you appear very unprofessional>>>I often get accused of being “unprofessional” by those who disagree. As if being professional means I must politely tolerate the nonsensical. Perhaps I should snivel and suck up to those less informed in a desperate attempt to promote and sell my books? If that’s what I’m supposed to do, shucks, I’m pretty bad at it.
Seriously, after dozens of series on true crime [almost 90 books in total], and 6 books on just this case, I don’t need to suffer impertinence from anyone on this subject. But here you are not honoring a post that is closed because of your lack of respect. Instead you want to insist on casting your stones somewhere else.
Fortunately from my side my unprofessional coverage of the Watts case on this site is pretty much done and dusted. Thanks to folks like you I won’t miss it, that’s for sure. Banned and I’m closing comments for this post too.