A major area of disagreement between TCRS and the mainstream media version of events [and Chris Watts’ 1st and 2nd version of events] is this idea that there was an argument, or an emotional conversation, that either played out just before or led directly to the murders.
The idea of an argument makes sense. God knows there was a lot to argue about. She was pregnant, he was having an affair, they were losing the house, his parents had been booted out of the family circle and there was that $68 charge he still had to explain…
It also makes sense that something very real had to trigger a triple murder. It seems less likely on the face of it that Watts would out of a silent scenario simply decide to kill his family.
At 4:49 in the clip below Watts is confronted with the idea of an argument. This happens roughly 24 hours after the incident, on the morning of August 14th, a Tuesday.
It’s worth hovering the cursor over 4:49 and playing it back a few times to catch the subtlety in the answer, and all the micro-expressions.
You’ll notice Watts looks up at the ceiling and also sways and smiles while saying they had didn’t argue, they had an emotional conversation “but”, then he smiles openly when he says, “I’ll leave it at that…and I just want them back.”
You either believe him on this score or you don’t. If you believe him, then you’re part of the crowd who believe the crime was a sort of a rage murder, an impulsive crime of passion. Something crazy happened in his head and he just snapped.
If you don’t believe him, then you’re figuring Watts as a coward who didn’t have the balls to confront his wife. Not about an affair, nor about a divorce. He just couldn’t do it.
And if that’s the case, the murder was premeditated. If Shan’ann’s murder was premeditated, so were the children. On this hinge, everything changes.