13 Things *RIGHT* with the Chris Watts Lifetime Movie

It’s easy to know in hindsight, but infidelity lies at the heart of the Chris Watts case. While researching this case I wanted to see the instances, in particular the very first instances, where law enforcement asked Watts about infidelity. There are a few, but the first, captured on Coonrod’s body camera where he asks Watts whether his separation with Shan’ann is “civil” camera is perhaps the most significant.

I was pleased to see Lifetime dramatized it, even if the execution was poor.

1. “Did you guys have any kinda of issues…marital issues or…?”

It is interesting how the dramatization gets subtle aspects wrong. Nickole Atkinson isn’t around when Coonrod mentions this in reality, and I’m not sure if it’s fair to say she was unaware that the couple had marital issues. What is true is Watts was claiming the separation was more formalized, more established than it really was. Also, in the Lifetime movie the actor says quite assertively, “We’re separated.” Chris Watts puts a milder touch to it, stuttering, “We’re going through a separation.”

2. Sex with Nichol Kessinger

Although everyone is aware of it, and everyone seems to think they know this case inside out, it’s clear the five week period Watts and Kessinger together felt like a honeymoon for both of them. It’s because of the spark and electricity of these encounters that Watts was largely desperate to keep the new relationship viable. And since Watts was somewhat inexperienced with the opposite sex, one can imagine the spell being cast over him being much stronger as a result when he found himself in a position of a coworker pursuing him.

3. Shan’ann on social media but seen from the perspective of a third party.

4. Nut Gate.

Although not explictly referred to there is a scene where Shan’ann mentions not wanting their children to sleep at the Watts home.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 004442

5. Deeter Gate

This scene is slightly more explicit than Nut Gate.

One can see how both Nut Gate and Deeter Gate raised the pressure on Watts to find a solution to his marital dilemma.

6. Watts is depicted as not happily married.

7. Not dramatizing the driveway.

0_chris-watts

[Points 8 – 13 will be provided on Patreon].

31 Things Wrong with CHRIS WATTS CONFESSIONS OF A KILLER – Review and Analysis [UPDATED]

First off, I didn’t share the Westword reporter’s view that the filmmakers blamed Thrive. To be honest, although this was depicted a few times, my impression is that the reporter was trying to gain traction for a story on a sensational angle. The Strive aspect is very secondary, very much in the background of this story. If you’re new to the Watts case, then maybe noticing Shan’ann’s promotional activity, which is dramatized occasionally, is going to seem like a big thing. It isn’t. In fact, it’s hard to say what the big thing is this film is trying to point out.

The main message of the film seems to be to say that everything we know about Watts, and what he did, is kinda fuzzy. That’s not a contribution to the lore surrounding to this case, it’s a weak concession, and a cop-out. It’s almost like the filmmakers said: look, we don’t know what happened here, nobody does, so let’s not try. Let’s just stick with his version, depict that and make the story about the version no one believes. Let them try to figure out what really happened – that’s not our job.

As a narrator, I found the narrative of the Lifetime movie messy, disorienting and chaotic. It’s not chronological, it’s not clear, and overall, as mentioned above, the film pays homage to Chris Watts first version, with only a passing interest in forensic accuracy. No surprises there. From a true crime perspective, Lifetime movies are the last place to want to find a documentary-style criminal investigation.

The value in dramatizations in Lifetime fare lies in:

1) Depictions of family dynamics, characters and interrelationships

2) Reenactments of the crime scene

The movie opens with out-of-focus footage of the child actors playing Bella and Celeste running through a garden, and laughing, while news coverage of the disappearance provides a kind of voiceover narration. Emphasized in this montage:

“They seemed like a normal family.”

Then there’s a close-up of the side of Watts’ eye, and a clip of his sandaled foot under a table jigging up and down. Watts is restless, agitated. Something is going on in his head.

Then the voiceover shifts to Shan’ann’s voice, doing a Thrive promo:

“You have to set an example for your kids…so take that leap of faith.”

You hear a child’s voice echoeing her words in the background, and Shan’ann laughs with delight. This feels a little like that 30-minute Thrive spiel on that Saturday morning in May with the whole family present.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 150336

This is all meant to show Chris Watts remembering them.And he’s remembering them, as I said, from the inside of the interrogation cubicle.

I found the opening montage fuzzy and disorientating. A poor start, in other words.

In fact, throughout the whole film there is very little footage of the children. For the most part they’re excluded or left out or there’s a blurry allusion to them. Besides Bella singing “My daddy is a hero…” in the car with Celeste beside her, and a brief clip of the children crying softly in the truck on the way to the well site, there’s virtually no dialogue from the children. And [spoiler warning] there are no dramatized scenes of the children on the driveway, getting into the truck, or of anything that happened at CERVI 319 on the morning of August 13th.

From a legal perspective, the narrative device seems quite clever, and probably impressed the producers at the pitch meeting for this film. “We’ll tell this story through Watts himself, giving the backstory to his own story during his polygraph test.”

In the discovery, there is a very extensive backstory from Watts himself in the pretesting phase, starting on page 581 and concluding 15 pages later on page 596.

“Then at the very end, we’ll provide the twist of the Second Confession to show you really can’t know someone, or whether what they say is true.” And so that’s how it’s done. Most of the film is from Watts’ perspective, and most of that perspective comes from 15 pages of the outdated discovery relating to the First Confession.

If you’ve found the first section of this analysis messy, disjointed and disorienting, that’s how the first two-minutes feel. It takes a while for the chronology of the story to settle down, and although it has its moments, the whole film is ultimately a mishmash of scenes and flashbacks with very little in the area of authentic moments. One seldom has an aha-moment where it feels like anyone’s character is addressed, and that’s the main problem. There’s no character-building. No arc. No real story to speak of.


It turns out the fuzzy memory of the children in the garden is from Watts’ head as he sits in the interrogation cubicle waiting for Tammy Lee to enter to do the polygraph test.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 001856

One of the best parts of the film is the movie title. The graphic design does a nice job in showing the two faces of Chris Watts, and how the two faces don’t line up. Skillfully represented.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 001906

The whole film basically cuts back and forth to Watts “remembering” the events leading up to the murders while he’s being questioned by Tammy Lee. In other words, 90% of the film is based on the First Confession.

The actor playing Agent Coder also plays a very, very secondary role to Tammy Lee [acted by the same woman who played the victim in the pit in The Silence of the Lambs].

After the title image, the scene reverts to Watts doing his infamous Sermon on the Porch. While he’s talking, dogs bark in the background. Not bad. Same setting, same words, same clothing, same basic body language. Even the actor appears less nonchalant than Watts did during his Sermon on the Porch. Even though he’s acting and didn’t commit triple murder, this is an irony in itself.

Once done with the interview, we something we haven’t seen before. Watts walks into the door and sits on the staircase. He’s alone. He sits there for some time. We see the light moving through the windows beside the front door, showing the movement of time. Cut back to the interrogation cubicle, and Watts is introduced to Tammy Lee, who let’s him know what he’s in for if she chooses to lie to him during the polygraph.

It’s at this point that the chronology starts to settle down into something slightly resembling a narrative.

Now let’s deal with the mistakes.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 021437-004

#1 Heaviness in the pregnancy announcement is missing.

Deeter is in the room, and at Watts’ feet when Shan’ann announces she’s pregnant. She’s wearing the right shirt, and he’s dressed the right way too. But this was the first sign of the filmmaker’s poor intuitive grasp of the subject material. Not only is the venue in the house wrong for where the spiel was recorded, Chris Watts appears genuinely excited and genuinely happy about the pregnancy, far more so than the real Watts did. The actor does a convincing scene, appearing enthusiastic about his movie-wife’s fictitious pregnancy. What was needed was for the heaviness in the dramatized Sermon of the Porch to be more manifest here, and for the nonchalance and lightness here, to be more evident in the Sermon on the Porch. Where the fake Watts says, “I guess, I guess when you want it it happens, ” there’s no trace of the awkward Chris Watts. Instead, it seems natural and even charming when acted out by this actor.

#2 Watts at the well site.

A lot is crammed into this scene. Watts describes his weight loss, and exhorts his co-worker to contact his wife and start Thriving. He loses his ring and his co-worker, retrieving it, says, “Forgot something?” His co-worker also mentions “Nikki” in the context of safety, and hands Watts a gift card to treat his wife. Watts also mentions his wife being pregnant and hoping for a boy [an aspect supposedly kept secret from everyone at work except his boss]. In this scene Watts appears way too balanced, confident and chatty.  Gift cards at Anadarko [which is never named in this film, and the well site and four white tanks are nothing like CERVI 319] are not allocated as actual gifts or favors, but are earned as a result of achieving safety milestones.

#3 Nichol Kessinger gives Watts her card.

Shan’ann meets Nickole, is on her phone most of the time. Leaves for North Carolina in the middle of the day.

We see Watts turning to face his house and the camera zooms in, making the house loom over him and swallow him up. This is arguably the best scene the film.

The way the story is staged is the moment after Shan’ann leaves and Watts is left alone, he meets Nichol Kessinger and things happen instantly.

#4 Chris Watts is home alone watching porn.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 003232

#5 He’s bored, so he calls up Nichol Kessinger.

#6 And they meet up in a wooded area.

#7 Where she finds out he’s a dad, and he’s married – but still wants to see him.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 003413

#8 “I’m out with the guys.” Watts hangs up on Shan’ann.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 003659

#9″Come here.” The assertive Watts ravishes his mistress in the backroom of a restaurant.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 003857

#10 “Are you judging me?” “Yes, I’m judging you!”

Fullscreen capture 20200127 162348

It just doesn’t sound like Watts, does it?

Note the sleep mask dangling from the bed post in the background.

#11 Visit to the Watts Home – minus Cindy, and minus Nut Gate.

#12 A distressed Shan’ann calls Watts to say…she doesn’t want the kids sleeping over at his folks.

She doesn’t say why.

#13 Deeter Gate – minus Deeter.

Nichol visits the Watts home. She doesn’t go unstairs and Deeter is nowhere in sight. She says, “Why would you want to leave all of this,” and then, in tears, asks Watts to take her home.

#14 Nichol Kessinger stalking Chris Watts’ Facebook page.

Not Shan’ann’s?

Does she know Shan’ann’s pregnant?

#15 Watts reconciles with Kessinger by picking her some yellow wildflowers.

#16 They go camping next to a lake, and after Googling when to say I love you, he tells her he loves her.


Watts Googled when to say I love you on July 25th, but only went camping a few days later.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 190315


#17 Watts heads to North Carolina – but they don’t meet at the airport…

Fullscreen capture 20200127 005245

As they did in real life…

“When Chris Watts caught up to her, Bella was screaming at the top of her lungs…” [Discovery Documents, page 681]

And incidentally, when Shan’ann and the kids left for North Carolina, Watts took her to the airport.

4F2C562A00000578-0-image-m-31_1534559311019

Instead of saying goodbye in the road, in front of the house.

Watts also gave Kessinger this card on their last day together in Colorado, before he left for North Carolina.

WattsFiles2-GDT-120218-3-1024x521

Their argument about airport parking isn’t depicted either. But Watts is depicted as standoffish.

They got the shirt color right for his arrival in North Carolina.

fullscreen-capture-20190406-123814

#18 Shan’ann tells Watts she’s “spotting”…on a pier…

When it was actually communicated via text on the afternoon of August 5th, 2018, the day prior to Watts visit with his folks in Spring Lake [without his wife and children, on their last full day in North Carolina].

Fullscreen capture 20200128 160010

#19 The scene dramatized at Myrtle Beach shows the kids flying a kite…

Shan’ann looks concerned, as if she’s cottoned on to Watts not being fully himself with her.

But it’s not quite the version we saw on social media…Watts Family at Myrtle Beach, August 2018 and the Tension is Palpable [VIDEO]

fullscreen-capture-20190203-00131173157823_1282093445305570_3473805389696459162_n

We don’t see the scene at the bungee trampoline either.

index

#20 During an argument back in Colorado, Watts decides they should take a trip [to Aspen] to mend their relationship.

And then Shan’ann leaves for Arizona. Although technically true, they did make plans for a couple’s weekend away in place of the gender reveal party, it was Shan’ann pushing for couple’s counselling, and as the dominant force in the relationship, it seems unlikely he would suggest this.

#21 There are no windows in the garage used in the Lifetime movie.

Because that’s how Nickolas was able to see inside, see Shan’ann’s car and car seats and know something was wrong.

fullscreen-capture-20180922-003336

Analysis of the blinds of Chris Watts’ Home

#22 Watts doesn’t close the door of the Lexus after entering the garage.

He leaves it open. It’s an obstruction.

Officer Coonrod’s Bodycam appears to show Watts tucking something under his arm…

Officer Coonrod’s Bodycam appears to show Watts retrieving something…in the garage [UPDATE]

#23 Inside the house Watts walks to the kitchen…and stays there.

Fullscreen capture 20200127 011305

Lifetime shows him glance into the pantry.

In reality, as soon as Coonrod reaches the kitchen, Watts scoots around him and walks quickly to retrieve Deeter from the basement. Why is Deeter in the basement? No one thinks to ask, but this ought to have put suspicion on Watts early on, and in retrospect, also shows premeditation and post meditation.

Excellent Footage of the Moment Officer Coonrod Arrives on the Scene at 2825 Saratoga Trail

#24 Chris Watts depicted as awkward as he views Trinastich surveillance video.

This is where the Lifetime movie Chris Watts jarrs. It’s not that his depiction isn’t true to life, it is, what’s wrong is this moment doesn’t fit with the cool, sauve, charming Watts the actor has portrayed until this moment. He’s left something out of the character and now, here, it’s too late to fill in those gaps, or figure out who Watts really is.

I guess he’s just an enigma right, and no one will ever know?

Or a narcissist?

Well, no. We know exactly what sort of personality-type he is.

But the actor just doesn’t get Watts as an introvert.

It’s not really clear what aspect he was trying to portray – perhaps narcissism. How do you portray narcissism that’s different to everyone else?

#25 Next we’re back to the Interrogation Cubicle, but Watts is sitting in the wrong place.

#26 And the scene of Watts confessing to his father…well…believe it or not it’s not actually depicted.

But at least they got Ronnie’s shirt color right, and Watts is also wearing the right clothes too.

Incredibly, there’s no depicting here of arguably the biggest WTF moment of the entire case – firstly where Watts confesses to his father, and secondly where Ronnie’s dad, shortly after being informed that his son murdered Shan’ann and both his grandchildren are dead, offers the cops some flaky corroboration [the doll wrapped in plastic] of Shan’ann’s supposed involvement using his phone.

#27 Who said: “I think we’re very, very close, but we’re not quite there yet”?

It wasn’t Lee, as depicted in the movie.

#28 – 31

The dramatization had a host of errors and inconsistencies too.


TCRS Analysis of the Final Scene in Confessions of a Killer – Patreon

The above link provides an analysis of the dramatization in the Lifetime movie, and why it doesn’t make any sense.

Fullscreen capture 20200124 191650

Twitter Reaction to Chris Watts Confessions of a Killer

It’s challenging making a movie where so much is known, and not known, about a high-profile case. In the space of 90 minutes, what do prioritize? What do you leave out?

Below are a few highlights from what social media liked, and didn’t like, about the Lifetime Movie.

Chris Watts actor showing too much emotion.

The reenactment of Shan’ann arriving home is haunting.

Some found the incredible credible.

And the credible incredible.

Some were disappointed.

How Shan’ann was protrayed comes a few times.

The casting was hit and miss..

Several comments highlighted how the drammatization simply left them “feeling sad.”

What did you think? Where there any facts you missed, or you felt they got wrong? What aspect of the relational dynamics was accurate, or artificial?

Another YouTuber implicating Nichol Kessinger

At 14:34 in the clip below the creator says, “This is a decision I will leave in your hands.” A few seconds later she’s adamant that her channel is all about the facts. The video’s title image is WOW FINALLY PROOF.

Proof of what?

She never explicitly says it, but by comparing Nichol Kessinger walking in and out of the interrogation cubicle to the indistinct figure walking out onto the driveway, the creator is trying to “prove” that Nichol Kessinger was a physical accessory to the Watts Family Murders not after, but during the fact.

Fullscreen capture 20200119 083048

During the clip of Kessinger, the background music is ominous and hollow, like something from a horror movie.

It’s quite clever. Kessinger is wearing jeans and white shoes. In the first clip of the figure walking out, Chris Watts is also wearing jeans and what appear to be white sneakers. That seems to be enough “facts” for this creator. It doesn’t seem to matter how skinny Kessinger’s legs and butt are compared to the figure walking out. It doesn’t seem to matter that you never see Watts and “Kessinger” at the same time on the driveway, nor do you see her long hair.

The ruler “measuring” the length of the respective figures is even more ridiculous. In one image the figure is closer to the camera and the trees than the other, an obvious fact based on the changing angle of the roof of the vehicle in the foreground relative to the figure behind it.  One image is zoomed in slightly more than the other.

The same creator emphasizes the “ping” off a tower in Frederick at 06:16 [about 30 minutes after Watts left his home on Saratoga Trail] as absolute evidence of Kessinger being an accessory. She was there! A single ping 30 minutes too late on a tower that she passes on the way to work is more than sufficient evidence for this creator.

What this creator and others seem to miss, is if Kessinger was an accessory [and she wasn’t] then she had to be very committed to Chris Watts. She had to be so committed to the relationship, according to these crazies, she helped him commit triple murder. But then a day later she had zero commitment to him.

Why would she be committed enough to commit murder, but show absolutely no interest in trying to help cover it up, to protect him and herself? Didn’t she just murder out of love? Why does she call the cops? Why does she talk to them for hours? What does she come back, again and again, to talk to them?

For the most part, we don’t see Kessinger in tears. We don’t see her distraught over her boyfriend having been caught, or passionately trying to defend him. Instead she appears resigned and deflated, betrayed and embarrassed.

The creator referred to above also provides what she describes as “scientific advice” on how to use Thrive/Le-Vel, and shares her “My Thrive Experience.” She models herself wearing Thrive patches and refers to the spiel of women needing to be at their best for their families and children. Underneath her video she asks those interested to message her on Facebook so she can mail samples.

Fullscreen capture 20200119 084204

The reason the Thrive promos are relevant is it goes to the standards, and motives, of the creator when it comes to truth telling. MLM companies, their products and their promoters, are hardly credible. They’re notoriously tricksy and iffy on the facts. If you want to be educated by the facts on MLMs, watch John Oliver’s take on it which has been viewed almost 20 million times and liked more than 230 000 times.

But let’s get back to this creator trying to implicate Kessinger in a triple homicide.

Finding a single fragment and turning that into a scenario is dangerous.

In the Frazee case we know his mistress was an accessory because she admitted it, and so through the Frazee case we see an example of what that looks and feels like. Krystal Kenney made a plea deal, testified in court and Patrick Frazee was convicted as a result. Kenney still has to stand trial for tampering with evidence. Besides that there is a heck of a lot of evidence proving Kenney was not only with Frazee, but moving with Kelsey Berreth’s handset after her death. She was also present when Berreth’s body was burned. Kenney also destroyed other evidence of Berreth’s, and participated in staging messages to Berreth’s employer. Kenney never called the cops, and when the cops came knocking, she initially lied, then got a lawyer, then signed a plea deal, and she’s still facing charges.

The phone records between Frazee and his mistress show a huge uptick in texts and calls back and forth, and synchronised, movement right around the time of the murder. Kenney also made several trips alone to Berreth’s home. Kenney took off work to clean up the crime scene. CCTV footage also confirms where she was, and where Frazee was, at particular times. None of this is present in the Watts case.

The main difference between Kenney and Kessinger was the length of time Kenney had been involved with Frazee – about 12 years. In that time she fell pregnant with his child, had an abortion and left her husband to be with Frazee. In Kessinger’s case, none of that happened. In a relationship of less than six weeks, where Kessinger wasn’t even aware of the pregnancy, there wasn’t time to develop that kind of I-will-kill-for-you commitment. As soon as Kessinger found out Watts was a diabolical douchebag, which was virtually immediately, she dropped him and she’s never been in contact since.

But these YouTubers don’t care about that. They care about taking a fragment of information and weaving it into a single, titillating scenario, and calling that facts. These aren’t facts, they’re fuzzy images and fuzzy logic, just as MLMs and their dodgy potions and overpriced powders shouldn’t be trusted. Creators like this one, who simply won’t stop trying to implicate Nichol Kessinger as a murder accessory, ought to have the videos that do taken down, and if they persist prosecuted for malicious defamation.

Watch Out for this Troll Reviewer

True crime is about the search for truth and justice, right? Wrong, it’s very often also about people trying to feel justified. I’ve always found that weird. In true crime many of us are preoccupied with figuring out the lies, manipulations and deceits of criminals. Is it okay to behave this way when reviewing an analysis of these criminal cases?

In this first review from My Daddy is a Hero the reviewer CM is clearly impressed, but not so impressed that she can’t resist casting stones in the same review at another subpar author – me.

Fullscreen capture 20200117 130753

Apparently I have zero qualifications and have written 30 books on the Chris Watts case. Wrong on both counts. To date I’ve written 10 books on the Chris Watts case. In terms of qualifications, I studied law and psychology at university, I have a degree in Economics, and a postgraduate diploma in Brand Management.

I’ve also sat in on a number of high-profile criminal cases for several weeks at a time, I’ve met with victims’ families, and in one instance I was asked to meet with a victim’s family because they wanted answers they weren’t able to get from the media. I’m also often requested privately to investigate particular cases, most of which regrettably I have to turn down.

I’ve made a career as a professional photojournalist writing for dozens of mainstream magazines and other print media, including international publications, and I’ve written more than 90 books, 90% of which are very positively reviewed and often bestsellers.

Fullscreen capture 20200117 143239

Writing one book on a criminal case does convey expertise on that partciular case, like it or not. Writing a book, self-published or not, means one has a specialized expertise in a particular area. Writing 10 books on the Watts case conveys one with a level of general knowledge, background and insight that is way above the average, or even the insights of most acknowledged experts. Writing 90 books across multiple criminal cases does actually convey something way beyond mere expertise.

I also have a publishing contract with a US publisher so not all of my books are self-published. My work is often cited by reputable sources, I’ve been quoted and published in international media as well as by documentarians. All too often my research is not cited as a source by amateur creators but simply appropriated.

How about you – the reviewer? What are your qualifications?

In CM’s review, she refers to a blog [likely this one] but takes exception to rudeness on it. This seems to be the main gripe against the research in the books reviewed.

Fullscreen capture 20200117 130627

It is simply not accurate or true to state that my books, or work, have “zero basis in fact” when all my work is hyperlinked to sources, and facts. My work is highly factual and filled with references, statistics and matters of an evidentiary nature. So to claim there is “zero basis in fact” isn’t fair.

Fullscreen capture 20200117 130913

Fullscreen capture 20200117 130549Fullscreen capture 20200117 130642Fullscreen capture 20200117 130658Fullscreen capture 20200117 130816Fullscreen capture 20200117 130902

Fullscreen capture 20200117 135038

Fullscreen capture 20200118 105910Fullscreen capture 20200118 105852

Fullscreen capture 20200118 111558

Most people with any common sense when they read one book they don’t enjoy, they stop there. It takes a special kind of reviewer to keep reading books they hate – and reviewing them. Would you describe the above reviews as rudeness?

The next time you read a TCRS book, bear in mind your reviews matter because they need to stand against this sort of thing, and CM isn’t the only troll reviewer out there. CT Brown left 21 troll reviews at last count, and Zarla left 10.

Fullscreen capture 20200117 144252.bmp

Visit the Nick van der Leek Author Page here.

CT Brown is at it again – this is a call to all genuine readers of true crime to report abuse on this troll reviewer

 

9 Days Before Chris Watts Lifetime Movie, Trio of Rzucek Lawyers Hold Press Conference

The Rzuceks want the public to stop talking about the Chris Watts case. 27 years after West Memphis 3, 25 years after the OJ Simpson case, 23 years after JonBenet Ramsey, 17 years after Laci Peterson, 15 years after Steven Avery, and 12 years after Casey Anthony – there’s a need that the Watts case receive special treatment. That no one report on it.

Less than two years after the Watts Family Murders the Rzuceks want the coverage of the case to…well…go away. They want people to move on.

I’ve said this before, Shan’ann Watts public profile on Facebook has provided ongoing fodder for the media and social media. If the Rzuceks really wanted coverage of the Watts case to go away, they could simply shut down Shan’ann’s Facebook, or else set the account to privacy. They haven’t. Instead, they seem to have taken over Shan’ann’s Thrive account.

One wonders whether these folks petitioning against freedom of speech [to think and express oneself freely] live in a fantasy bubble. If they wanted rumor control, they ought to have followed due process of the law and allowed this case to play out at trial. That wouldn’t have changed the interest in this case, but at least it would have carved certain undisputed facts in stone. It was always ill-advised for the victims’ family to give the perpetrator what he apparently wanted so easily – a plea deal – without making sure law enforcement knew exactly what happened. Almost two years later we still don’t, and that’s the problem. It’s this uncertainty that continues to feed the colossal hamster-wheel of public curiosity around this case.

But reading between the lines, the issue doesn’t feel as much about concerns over storytelling around this case, but the Greeley-based legal eagles being left out of the storytelling projects going on, and more pertinently, the money making. Isn’t that their job in the first place? Aren’t they there to collect any revenues made through Chris Watts as part of the civil suit settlement? Chris Watts has agreed to pay them $6 million, but that money can only be made if Chris Watts participates in a production, or a book, one way or the other, and he hasn’t done that. In Cherlyn Cadle’s case, Watts simply wrote letters to the author and left her to spin these into something.

The Rzuceks and their legal representatives need to actually produce something themselves if they wish to profit in some way, rather than focussing on either shutting other productions down or trying to piggyback or interfere with independent productions. If they have a story to tell, they should tell it. That’s the best way of influencing a narrative.

Like all high-profile cases, this one can’t be controlled but it can and should be more authentic than the storytelling circus its become.

TCRS Reviews Episode 3 Shocker of Killing of JonBenet Ramsey Podcast

Episode 3 is titled “A Father’s Anguish”, and bills itself as John Ramsey addressing inconsistencies in his own accoutns of Christmas Night and the day after Christmas. Except he doesn’t. There is no admission of inconsistencies, and no addressing of inconsistencies.

Fullscreen capture 20200114 102632

That’s to be expected.

In reality episode 3 is a 39-minute moan by John Ramsey and his eldest son John Andrew, Burke’s older half-brother, about how inept and unfair the investigation was into them.

In effect it’s a follow-on to the previous episode which was just as misleadingly titled “The Case Against the Ramseys.” A more honest title would have been “The Witchhunt Against Us” with Episode 3 being Part 2 to that bitch and moan.

Despite the latest episode’s abundance of bullshit and bogus Apologia, episode 3 is chock-full of nuggets. It’s the best and most useful episode thus far thanks to plenty of freeflowing disclosures from the Ramsey patriarch and his eldest son. It’s easy to see how and why there’s a chip on someone’s shoulder here. John Andrew has one, where did he get it from? And if John Andrew has a chip on his shoulder, why wouldn’t Burke? In fact Judith Philipps, the family photographer described Burke in precisely those terms in the CBS documentary [yes, the one they tried to sue].

Fullscreen capture 20200110 134446.jpg

The 39 minutes are literally littered with gems and small little revelations that seem incidental on the surface. When one knows the case back to front, however, it’s clear where to place these little titbits of information. And they’re not titbits as much as the final puzzlepieces missing from the already elaborate mosaic that is the Ramsey case.

In the TCRS Debunk series dealing with this episode, four separate aspects are interrogated in detail.

  1. John Ramsey
  2. John Andrew
  3. “DNA CASE”
  4. Bottomline Suspect

Listen to the TCRS Debunk of the Killing of JonBenet Podcast [episode 3] on Patreon.

Fullscreen capture 20191230 172322-001