True Crime Analysis, Breakthroughs, Insights & Discussions Hosted by Bestselling Author Nick van der Leek

Month: December 2019 (Page 2 of 2)

TCRS Reviews Criminal Confessions Season 3 Episode 1 FULL EPISODE [SEGMENT 1 + 2]

The star of this episode is undoubtedly Colorado Bureau of Investigation Agent Tammy Lee. She’s not only the star, she steals the show. It makes sense because of all the law enforcement folks on the slate in this episode, Tammy Lee is the only one who sat in on the confession. We don’t see or hear from detective Baumhover, and although Coder is referenced in the interrogation footage, we never hear from him firsthand. We do from Lee, and she’s provides a kind of running narration right through. It’s her emotions, her mission for justice – for Shan’ann, Niko, Bella and Celeste – that forms the golden thread through this episode.

In this in-depth analysis of the FULL 1:06:05 EPISODE  of Criminal Confessions, I’ll be looking at key insights through 5 x 10-15-minute segments.

FIRST SEGMENT

The first segment deals with Shan’ann’s obsessive use of her phone, and Facebook, and the discovery of her phone.

Fullscreen capture 20191211 124101

In the first ten minutes of the episode, the District Attorney Michael Rourke provides voice-over narration for the familiar opening salvos of the Watts case. Nickole arriving at the door, then Officer Coonrod, then Watts returning from work followed by the walk through of the house. They find the beds in disarray but no other signs of disturbance. They find Shan’ann’s medicine and purse in the house, the car and car seats are in the garage. And yet it’s Shan’ann’s and Ceecee’s health issues that don’t gibe with them having gone somewhere without taking medication along. It’s all a little strange.

ROURKE: Shan’ann lived her entire life, through social media, through her phone…It was very unlike Shan’ann not to answer her phone, not to at least send a text. And so I think that alone raised the level of concern, and fear, very early on in this process.

Fullscreen capture 20191211 122436

LEE: The people that know Shan’ann, know Shan’ann was very attached to her cell phone.

Fullscreen capture 20191211 123213Fullscreen capture 20191211 123147

Fullscreen capture 20191211 123326Fullscreen capture 20191211 123345Fullscreen capture 20191211 123440Fullscreen capture 20191211 123515

Fullscreen capture 20191210 223611

Fullscreen capture 20191211 124824

COONROD: You guys have any kind of issues? Marital, issues, or…?

WATTS: We’re…going through a separation.

COONROD: You guys filed yet or anything, or just talking?

WATTS: No, we were gonna…well…we were gonna have to sell the house. And go through a separation. 

Fullscreen capture 20191211 125351

COONROD: And how’s that goin’?

WATTS: I…it’s going…

COONROD [Interrupting]: Civil for the most part?

WATTS: Civil, yeah [laughs].

Watts looks down at his phone…

Fullscreen capture 20191211 125337

 


SECOND SEGMENT

The second segment deals with the neighbor, the surveillance footage and the shadows on the driveway.

Fullscreen capture 20191211 123847

At 12:09 into the documentary, the narration switches over to another aspect – the nieghbor. At this point the narrator also switches – a little disorientatingly – from the District Attorney to the Deputy District Attorney. And it’s also at this point that Trinastich himself takes us through the driveway aspect of the narrative.

In this short segment – which ends about three minutes later at 15:13 – Trinastich provides a lot more, I feel, than he did on Dr. Oz. Trinastich also comes back later in the documentary to provide some touching details. The part I want to highlight is the shadows on the driveway.

TRINASTICH: I was hoping to catch Shan’ann leaving with Bella and Celeste. I was hoping we might catch somebody coming and picking them up to take them on a playdate like Chris had said. But we had picked up no other motion, or anything like that, coming from their house.

Fullscreen capture 20191211 174400Fullscreen capture 20191211 175235

And so now we deal with the meat of this segment, and really the meat-and-potatoes of the YouTube conspiracy nuts that have been making a meal out of a tiny little area of uncertainty. It’s the moment at 12:59 where the documentary plays back all the times Trinastich’s camera catches Watts walking to and from his truck on the side of his truck away from the camera. Each time you see Watts you see a shadow. Interestingly, when juxtaposed in this way you also see the shape of the shadow and how it changes when he’s walking from right to left, and from left to right. When he walks left to right, Watts shadow is very thin, ending in a sharp needle point then widening into a line. Coming from the right it’s thicker.

WRENN: What the video shows is Chris making several trips from the garage, out to the driver’s side of the vehicle, which is from the other side of the car, from the angle of the camera. So you can’t see what if anything is being put in the car per se. 

And then it reverts to Watts acting weird next to the screen. He says stuff like this:

Fullscreen capture 20191211 180220Fullscreen capture 20191210 232313

The shadows on the driveway really have to be seen moving, rather than from stills. But regardless of this aspect, it’s not mentioned once, anywhere, by anyone in the documentary that Watts appears to pick up a child. There’s not even a hint that that’s the case. There’s also not even a moment where the footage is used to suggest anyone else. Instead, Rourke’s words at this point are quite interesting. He refers to the importance of keeping an open mind, and not succumbing to tunnel vision.

images (15)

Fullscreen capture 20191210 232322Fullscreen capture 20191210 232325Fullscreen capture 20191210 232440Fullscreen capture 20191210 232447


THIRD SEGMENT

CBI Agent Tammy Lee says Coder’s Questions about the “Emotional Conversation” Frustrated Watts

Two things stood out to me about Tammy Lee’s comments. One was her recognition that Watts’ facial expression changed when they started vilifying Shan’ann, and offering her as a scapegoat. Although Watts initially balked at this psychological carrot verbally, it turns out they could easily see – on his face – how much he was willing and able to run with it. And that’s exactly what he did do.

The other thing that stood out was Lee referring to the question that frustrated Watts the most. She’s says it was from Coder, but there were a couple from her where he got pretty angry, and started raising his voice too [related to Tammy not wanting Shan’ann to get a bum rap for a crime she didn’t commit].

TCRS has a particular theory why Watts would have been not only frustrated, but anxious around this idea of the “emotional conversation.” Any ideas what that theory may be?

The FBI Got Chris Watts to Confess by Victim-Blaming Shan’ann – and what it means

LEE: So, we’re all watching Chris’ first argument…basically live…on the five ‘o clock news. I thought it was strange that you would talk about that [the emotional conversation] on the news…

ROURKE: The concern that he professed to have…seemed cold and calculated.

Fullscreen capture 20191208 102135Fullscreen capture 20191208 110249.bmpFullscreen capture 20191208 102215Fullscreen capture 20191208 111939Fullscreen capture 20191208 102301images (3)Fullscreen capture 20191208 104253Fullscreen capture 20191207 162814Fullscreen capture 20191208 104328Fullscreen capture 20191207 161944

Sources:

Here’s How Investigators Got Chris Watts to Confess to Murdering His Family

‘It Was Such A Risky Move,’ So Why Did Investigators Let Chris Watts Meet With His Dad While Being Questioned? – Oxygen

CBI Agent Tammy Lee on OXYGEN: “It’s worse than I thought so it must be true”

Fullscreen capture 20191207 162814

There’s a saying by Mark Tawin:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Let’s face it, mindfuckery is a tricky subject. It’s tricky to talk about because what you’re trying to do is convince someone their cognitive wiring might be a little wonky. And if you don’t start off this argument just right, you’re liable to lose not your argument but the suspicion may arise that you – the guy fielding the argument – might be touched in the head.

I suppose, to make this argument effectively one has to start by acknowledging – GASP – the possibility that human beings in general sometimes [often, actually] make mistakes.

So let’s take Einstein. Did one of the smartest people who ever lived ever make a thinking error?

Have we made any mistakes in our thinking about Einstein?

How about Stephen Hawking?

Fullscreen capture 20191207 173911

And Bill Gates?Fullscreen capture 20191207 173849

The good news is when we acknowledge our mistakes, amazing things are allowed to happen. Take Steve Jobs:

Is it possible mistakes were made not just individually, but collectively in the Watts case? If so, what sort of thinking errors are we talking about? Well, here are a couple to choose from:

While a couple of these may apply, a handful look like they do.

Fullscreen capture 20191207 181347

Let’s deal briefly with just one before we deal with the statements in the documentary more specifically. It’s this one:

Fullscreen capture 20191207 181512

Essentially what the Appeal to Probability is saying is that because something is possible it’s probable. The law, for example, disagrees with that. In court something has to be probable, and reasonably probable absent other more or less probable possibilities, for it to be judged true.

Fullscreen capture 20191207 181522

There are many instances where things are possible – anything, theoretically is possible. But it’s this area that explains tricky, troubling and ongoing debates around, for example, did the world evolve or did God create it? Which is possible? Which is probable? Is climate change manmade or is it a myth? Which is possible? Which is probable?

There are many, many areas we can go into, and figuring out truth from fallacy using logic is both a fascinating and very in-depth area of cognitive psychology. A lot of true crime deals with our perceptions, and what we perceive. We won’t go into that here, but it’s a subject TCRS has covered at length in the past, and will continue to expose in SILVER FOX POST TRUTH, the final book in the SILVER FOX trilogy.

Fullscreen capture 20191023 131243

Now let’s deal with the documentary.

Fullscreen capture 20191207 164012

images

Fullscreen capture 20191207 163017Fullscreen capture 20191207 161944Fullscreen capture 20191207 162244Fullscreen capture 20191207 162545Fullscreen capture 20191207 162814On the one hand, the District Attorney and the Deputy District Attorney are the authorities closest to the case, so we’d expect thought leadership and clarity from them. Basically what they believe must be true. That same appeal to authority applies to CBI agent Tammy Lee. And yet invariably all three agree with the same faulty premise. Because the second version is worse, it must true.

There’s a very obvious problem with this premise, and it’s this:

There’s a third version that’s even worse than the second. Does that mean that premise is true? The DA and the agent – and the documentary – don’t even mention Watts’ version to Cadle.

We can also see how in Watts First Confession, where he said Shan’ann killed the kids and so he killed Shan’annn [a false idea deliberately offered to Watts by the investigators themselves] was a step closer to the truth, but also not true. It was true Watts had killed Shan’ann, but not true that she’d killed the children. And yet this same psychology of deception holds for how the interrogators got their pound of truth from Watts. They tempted him to give a little bit of truth by giving him “permission” to lie about – to minimize – his involvement. Stay with me here because it gets a little convoluted here. Watts is incentivized to take the bait because he is at least let off the hook of the child murders. But in taking the bait, he also admits the truth – the worse truth – that he killed Shan’ann.

If the psychology of “worse version trumps all” holds, then surely the worst version of all in terms of a global view of this case would be Shan’ann killing her own children, and then Watts killing her.

We must also bear in mind the same methodology of the First Confession was also used in the Second, which was to lead people-pleaser-Watts down the Yellow Brick Road of the confession. Coder – not interviewed here – did that.

What happened next, did this happen or that. That? Okay, what about this. Oh…

Significantly Watts didn’t volunteer his confession in either case [except he did in the Third Confession to Cadle] he was led to it. And he gave the version he thought his interrogators believed anyway. He gave the version, worse than the previous version, but still the minimal version he could get away with telling. What did he get in exchange? He was let off the hook in having to talk about it, first in terms of an even longer interrogation, then a trial, then more interrogation.

There is a worse version than the Second Version, by the way. The Second Version – an almost random, impulsive killing at the well site – is worse than the first, but it’s also better than the second. Why? Because the second version strips away the premeditation. A premeditated murder is an aggravated crime, it is criminal intent with deliberation. When this occurs a sentence is often the maximum sentence – as it was in this case.

Watts agreed in his plea deal to charges that included the words with deliberation [including of both children]. And yet his Second Confession, the one the prosecutors and agent now seem to say they accept, walks back that deliberation.

Fullscreen capture 20191207 184204

TCRS has exhaustively covered – and ridiculed – Watts bogus notions in the Second Confession that he alternatively “just snapped” and that he committed the crime “in a rage” without thinking. In fact TCRS predicted the “just snapped” minimization months before Watts came up with it.

“Chris Watts Just Snapped” – October 4th, 2018

The DA accepted his version of a cold, calculated murder and so did Watts. That’s why he signed the plea deal and didn’t object to this version mentioned during the sentencing on November 19th, 2018. Watts – in his last version [written in April 2019 and published in October 2019] – has also admitted he’d premeditated the murder for weeks, and made one or more attempts to poison Shan’ann to bring about a miscarriage.

So why would the DA and CBI Agent Tammy Lee go back on their own version, the one fielded in court?

To soothe popular opinion?

To engage popular opinion?

Maybe. Maybe one. Maybe both. Or maybe there is an even simpler meat-and-potatoes mindfuckery going on. It’s known as the appeal to ignorance, a very powerful and successful way of bullshitting the mainstream in the modern era. A bunch of YouTube channels thrive on this run-of-the-mill fallacy, as do MLMs. Evil, deception and dishonesty thrives in a culture of ignorance. And like or or not, in spite of or perhaps because of the information era, we live in a culture of ignorance.

Fullscreen capture 20191207 172153

Further Reading:

Chris Watts describes the reason he killed Shan’ann Watts: “I just snapped” [AUDIO Part 1+2] – March 2019

Chris Watts explains what made him snap – June 2019

“Like, he snapped” – Chris Watts Special Coming Soon on HLN – July, 2019

If there’s an innocent reason the authorities closest to this case believe what they do [and I’m not convinced there is, but who knows] it may be due to their being so close to the case that they’ve become emotionally compromised. We know that’s happened to the lead detective. Has it happened to anyone else. Have you been so afflicted by it you haven’t been able to think logically or scientifically about it?

images (2)

Fullscreen capture 20191207 163251Fullscreen capture 20191207 163136Fullscreen capture 20191207 163153

Original Article:

Chris Watts case investigators are still reeling: ‘How does this happen?’ – NBC

Now, remember that saying by Twain?

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

It’s also been attributed to Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, Ann Landers and others. The quote itself isn’t even authentic, but derived from something similar written by Jonathan Swift [Irish poet, and author of Gulliver’s Travels]:

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.

Perhaps that’s why there are so many ums and TCRS is accused of being slow to get to the point. The truth takes time, it’s subtle, and complicated, and sensitive to distortions, misreadings and derivations. But coming back to Watts, think about the psychology of his storytelling. This idea that if something is worse it must be true, and we should accept it.

Now connect that psychology to the psychopathology of this crime. Connect that psychology of fear to the psychology of the introvert who wants to be well thought of, including in the context of a crime, including by his interrogators.

Chris Watts committed murder because he believed the pregnancy and divorce was “worse than I thought committing murders would be”, so I’d rather do that.

Makes sense now, doesn’t it?

Fullscreen capture 20191207 163621

Experts: “This Was Chris Watts Motive For Killing His Entire Family…”

Do you agree?

The expert waffles on here a little about separation, and the psychology of separation. Do you think that’s why Watts committed the crime? Because of a psychology of separation?

As so often happens in true crime documentaries, the title of the documentary is about how the motive is revealed for the first time. Then, when you watch the documentary, it’s all about how nobody knows why, nobody can say why, and it’s all still a mystery. Which means the producers have duped you.

What do you think of a domestic violence expert commenting on the Chris Watts case?

Analysis coming soon on TCRS Patreon.

Newer posts »