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