Today the Rzucek family responded to statements made by Chris Watts’ mother…except, well…they didn’t respond. Someone else responded on their behalf. This was clear both in the language and tone of the response.
If you think that’s a farfetched comment, check out Frank Rzucek reading from his own prepared statement. Listen to the way he speaks and how he uses words.
When today’s statement came out, many probably read the statement at face value, gave it a passing glance and went on with their day. Rocket Science doesn’t let such nuggets slip by so easily, however.
According to the Denver Channel:
On Tuesday, Shanann Watts’ parents, Frank and Sandra Rzucek, responded to the statements made by Cindy Watts in comments released by the law firm representing them.
Strangely “the law firm representing them” isn’t identified. We know who represented them at the press conference to announce the plea deal though, it was none other than Michael Rourke, Weld County’s District Attorney. So have the Rzucek’s retained legal counsel besides the state prosecutor? If so, how are they able to afford it on a carpenter’s salary?
More likely, in my view, “the law firm representing them” is a garbage comment meant to replace the words “District Attorney”. And what does mean: Frank and Sandra Rzucek, responded to the statements made by Cindy Watts in comments released by the law firm representing them. Does it mean Frank and Sandra both gave their input and a law firm typed it out? Does it mean they made comments and a law firm took dictation, made a transcript, scribbling down each word? And did both Frank and Sandra comment? If so, who said what?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument the DA’s office released this statement “on behalf of” the Rzuceks [but in reality, on behalf of their own interests in shutting down this case]. What is it they’re saying about the current state of legal limbo?
Shan’ann Watts was a faithful wife [versus Chris Watts was an unfaithful husband, nice one]
The rest of the first paragraph is sentiment. One could theoretically accuse Chris Watts of the same thing – gentle parenting, being a loving father and a good soul.
The real mindfuckery begins in the second paragraph:
Everyone who knew Shan’ann knows this [present tense] to be true.
The allegation in this comment is that those who criticize Shan’ann didn’t know her very well, and are liars. In other words, it’s an attempt by “the law firm” to demonize the Watts family. It’s not done directly though, they’re just getting those mind engines to start turning so that when they do do so directly, the right people can hit the ground running with it, and run with it.
In the 3rd paragraph there is an “attempt” to defend their son [not in court, just at home, at the end of a long holiday]. In reality, this was the first time the Watts family had broken their silence in the three months since the murders took place in mid-August. Think about that. That’s a long time to say nothing while all about you are having their say. The Rzuceks were in court and gave initial statements to the press, the Watts family never did, until now. Aren’t they allowed to express their opinion?
They felt the need to make vicious, grotesque and utterly false statements about Shan’ann…
Really? Vicious? What’s vicious about Chris Watts’ mother describing their marriage, their relationship as ‘hard’?
It was a very hard relationship,” said Cindy Watts, Chris’ mother. “It was a very hard
Grotesque? Is it grotesque to suggest Shan’ann was abusive and they felt she isolated Chris from his family in the time they were together when Shan’ann’s boss at Longmont Ford said effectively the same thing to The Daily Beast in an article titled ‘Everyone Liked Him’: Did Colorado Dad Chris Watts Lead a Double Life?:
It’s a little hypocritical isn’t it, to be interrogating allegations of Chris Watts’ double life, from his affairs to his alleged bisexuality, but it’s grotesque, vicious foul when his parents suggest there was another side to Shan’ann that no one knows about.
What if what they say is true? If it is, it goes to the legal defense [potentially, not necessarily] of mitigation, meaning if the “abuse” he suffered was serious enough, a jury might grand him a lesser sentence. It may also go even further, to a legal defense of justifiable homicide. This was the legal defense Oscar Pistorius used, and Jodi Arias tried to use. Pistorius did well with his, until it blew up. Jodi Arias – well, we know what happened to her, but the abuse narrative her defense emphasized at trial had the impact of changing the mind of a single juror. So an abuse narrative in a criminal trial isn’t irrelevant. The question is, if it’s an authentic part of the actual dynamics, how relevant is it? What was the scale and scope of it?
“The law firm” repeats the word “lie” twice, and twice repeats an allegation of the Watts family making “utterly false statements”. It’s the legal jargon way of screaming the accusation as loud as possible in public that your adversary is”fucking lying”.
The final sentence of that paragraph, as I’ve demonstrated, is in itself inaccurate. The statements made the Watts family could indeed alter the outcome of a trial, and could indeed have an impact on how Shan’ann is seen not only as a person, but in a legal sense. Knowing more about the other side to the story could very well alter the “truth” [as the anonymous law firm has it] about the crimes committed.
So much for the truth, we don’t even know what’s in the autopsy reports, a public document that is invariably made public, but not in this case. So much for the truth, that at trial, the media weren’t granted the right to extended coverage when the District Attorney knew ahead of time that a plea deal was on the cards. So much for the truth, when the plea hearing – which many are saying is rushed and controversial for various reasons – was timed to coincide with the Mid-Term Elections, when media resources and attention spans would be stretched thin.
Shan’ann’s memory and reputation deserves to be protected. And her family is fully prepared to do so.
That’s stating the obvious. Obvious Shan’ann’s dignity deserves to be protected. If anything, a criminal trial honors and recognizes her life, and makes an effort to actually find out who she was and what happened to her.
Her family’s “full preparedness” to protect her reputation suggests they will take legal action and spare no expense to defend false accusations. Wow, so you’d go the route of defamation suits but not have a criminal trial to find out what happened, and why your own flesh-and-blood multiplied by four was murdered? Of course, none of this is the Rzuceks talking, it’s all the “anonymous law firm” representing their interests from the shadows.
I have no doubt that their intention is to protect reputations, and that they are fully prepared to do so, I just don’t think they give a crap about Shan’ann’s reputation.
Also, and I’m sorry if the legal folk involved take this the wrong way, but why is there not a single peep about a very, very serious allegation being made here. The Watts family are saying their son was coerced into making a deal. They’re saying they’re feeling shut out, that they’re not being heard and that they’re not being allowed to communicate openly with their son without being shut down.
These are INCREDIBLY serious charges, and they seriously undermine the legal efficacy of the plea deal. Is the plea deal even valid? Of course, the “law firm representing the family” are dead silent on this issue, which is strange. They’re a LAW FIRM, aren’t they?
Recent Comments