Bella and Ceecee: Murdered in their Beds?

At 1:04 in the clip below, CNN’s breezy narrator describes Watts murdering Bella in her bedroom. Really? Is that where Bella was murdered?

Let’s be clear, it’s been the contention of TCRS from the start that no one was murdered in their beds. Not Shan’ann, not Bella and not Ceecee. We’ve gone to some trouble thus far to discuss the ground zero of Shan’ann’s murder. Unlike the kids, Shan’ann’s shoes by the front door, the suitcase by the stairs, the Vivint alert and the doorbell camera footage, all provide a fairly clear glimpse of the final location of the 34-year-old saleswoman on Monday night.

Whether we postulate that Shan’ann was murdered immediately upon entering the home [at 01:48] or hours later [no later than 05:18], we still have a window of a handful of hours in which to definitively say Shan’ann was killed.

We don’t have anywhere near the same certainty about the children. The last time they were seen alive was Sunday afternoon/early evening. We’re not even clear about exactly when they were last seen, which is bizarre in itself.

The window of the children’s murders is anywhere from approximately 17:00 [depending on exactly when Bella FaceTimed with her grandfather] to roughly 05:00 the next morning. That’s roughly twelve hours of uncertainty about when. It’s also a very long period to be uncertain about where.

Did they have dinner? It appears Bella was snacking while she FaceTimed. It also appeared [again, strangely] that the kids swapped their snacks. Did they have dinner or snacks?

Fullscreen capture 20190210 123906

Were they bathed? [Watts claimed he gave his girls a shower and then put them in bed, Discovery Documents, page 584].

Fullscreen capture 20190210 122320

Did they watch tv before bed? Did they ever go to bed?

I recently discussed this aspect with a fellow true crime addict, and a new thought surfaced that I hadn’t considered before. While many of you may disagree with the details and the fineprint, try to take this in as a global hypothesis. It’s simply an idea or theory that came up during a discussion. The idea is to test, evaluate and explore some of the thoughts and ideas in it, and see where that might take us.

Ready?

The broad pattern of the murder and disposal was that it was a carefully premeditated attempt to blend a triple murder within Watts’ normal, everyday schedule. So when the rest of the suburb is asleep, he’s not, but if he’s up earlier or goes to bed later than usual [or the kids meet their death at bedtime] who is to know?

He wakes up pretty much on schedule, and leaves to work pretty much on schedule, and goes to work roughly corresponding to where work needs him. From an outsider’s perspective there is minimal deviation. It’s just Mr Watts heading out on a Monday morning as usual.

What impression is Watts working at here? Watts is trying to achieve plausible deniability. When his family disappears where was he?

I was just going to work…

I was at work…

I was out near Roggen all day…

I was busy…

Fullscreen capture 20190210 131931

Watts also used his work, indirectly, as a cover for where he was during the Rockies game [when he had dinner with Kessinger]. He said he was at a work function with colleagues.

Clearly the neighbor picked up that it wasn’t normal for Watts to back his truck into the garage, and his coworkers at Anadarko said it was odd for Watts to be calling on a Sunday, or to be heading out to a well site straight from home on a Monday.

But Watts was probably counting on folks being less savvy about silly little details like that. Besides, who would really notice his truck at that time of the morning, and if they did, who would care? And if they did care, he was just loading tools, so what? What other choice did he have? Load up the Lexus? And drive where? For what? And how did he explain that?

If the cops did suspect him the GPS data wouldn’t be of much use because he’d visited a number of wells that day, and the next. What, were they gonna search every well? And if he played it cool, they wouldn’t suspect him to begin with.

Whatever the details of his plan, it seems Watts felt he could bury the crime inside plausible deniability. Getting up, going to work, and acting nonchalant.

If we take this psychology and apply it to the crime scene, and the question about where the children were murdered, a new scenario unfolds. 

And the scenario is this:

When Shan’ann arrives home the children are – plausibly enough – in their beds. They’re not asleep though, they’re dead, but Shan’ann won’t know that. She’ll simply quietly look in, see them lying there and presto – Watts has plausible deniability in plain sight with them.

I realize this scenario is at odds with the idea of Shan’ann not going upstairs at all, but let’s just explore it a little further, for argument’s sake. If the children were murdered early in the evening, and placed in their beds, by 02:00, roughly six hours after death, their bodies would likely be stiff and pungent. If Shan’ann entered the room, and approached them, or kissed them, there was a good chance she might notice their palor, or smell something. So perhaps Watts murders the children late at night, shortly after finding out Shan’ann’s flight would be delayed.

In this scenario when Shan’ann arrives the children are in bed, and less blue, stiff and smelly. Alternatively, Watts could commit the crimes within half an hour, or minutes before Shan’ann arrives home. In this scenario the children are asleep in bed when they are killed, and then left where they are. Once again, it’s plausible deniability. At face value, they appear to be asleep but actually they’re not.

In this scenario, Shan’ann arrives home and possibly enters their bedrooms. She somehow realizes something is wrong. They’re not breathing, and their skin is cool or cold to the touch. Perhaps Shan’ann notices they’re blue. Instead of strangling her own children, Shan’ann tries to resuscitate them. Thus distracted, Watts then attacks her from behind and murders her. Perhaps his original plan was to kill her in her sleep as well, but her finding the kids dead prematurely forces him to abandon his plan.

Taking the scenario further, Nichol Kessinger noted that Watts felt the children’s blankets were smelly in their conversation Monday night. This suggests the children were dead in their beds, which left a lingering odor. By Monday night Watts felt a sense of urgency to wash these blankets.

Fullscreen capture 20190204 121721

Watts also disposed on blankets, apparently, somewhere between CERVI 319 and the house on Saratoga Trail. So the blankets appear to be virtually the only items missing in this case. This suggests that the blankets have something to do with the crime. Either they were wrapped in them for transportation, or they died in them, and the blankets were removed as part of the cover up.

Fullscreen capture 20190204 121822

There also appears to be some reinforcement to this from the dog handler, who picked up some interest in an area below Bella’s bed.

Fullscreen capture 20190210 121444Fullscreen capture 20190210 121500

Watts also indirectly references this psychology of death in the bed by referring to Shan’ann wanting to wash the airport out of her sheets, and off herself.


Fullscreen capture 20181216 025421Fullscreen capture 20190210 121157Fullscreen capture 20190210 122148Fullscreen capture 20190210 122207Fullscreen capture 20190210 123749Fullscreen capture 20190210 123840Fullscreen capture 20190210 124008Fullscreen capture 20181129 124705Fullscreen capture 20181208 170147Fullscreen capture 20181208 180519

36596106_10155531245936935_8198048921075843072_n

Fullscreen capture 20181211 075904Fullscreen capture 20181211 081120Fullscreen capture 20181213 161600Fullscreen capture 20181213 161728Fullscreen capture 20181213 161734Fullscreen capture 20181213 161736Fullscreen capture 20181213 161741Fullscreen capture 20181213 161808Fullscreen capture 20181214 175921Fullscreen capture 20181214 175923Fullscreen capture 20181214 175926Fullscreen capture 20181214 175929Fullscreen capture 20181214 175932Fullscreen capture 20181214 175947 - CopyFullscreen capture 20181214 175951

Fullscreen capture 20190210 125355

Fullscreen capture 20190210 125519Fullscreen capture 20190210 125656

Fullscreen capture 20190210 125836Fullscreen capture 20190210 130020Fullscreen capture 20190210 130413Fullscreen capture 20190210 130422Fullscreen capture 20190210 130433Fullscreen capture 20190210 130505Fullscreen capture 20190210 130548Fullscreen capture 20190210 130608Fullscreen capture 20190210 130625Fullscreen capture 20190210 131158Fullscreen capture 20190210 131212Fullscreen capture 20190210 131224Fullscreen capture 20190210 131245Fullscreen capture 20190210 131311

Although the above scenario is credible in some ways, it’s not the position of TCRS, which remains that none of the murders were committed in any of the bedrooms upstairs.


 

Lie Spotting: Test your true crime lie detector nous with Prince Andrew

The Chris Watts case has provided armchair detectives with a brilliant – and relatively basic – case study on lie-spotting and body language. If we’ve become experts on Watts how good are we at someone else? Someone better educated. Someone older. Someone smarter.

In the 49 minute interview with the BBC, few people were fooled, but can you say why there’s deception, and where exactly? Are you able to figure out the tells of a royal?

This time TCRS is going to leave it to you to go through the video first and see which tells you can find. See how many you can pick up in the first five minutes, or longer if you have the stamina, and see whether you’ve developed the skill to discern between why something is – or isn’t – a tell.

If you notice any additional insights, be sure to note them in the comments below. This page will be updated later with an assessment by TCRS.

Prince Andrew sparks near-universal condemnation with TV interview – CNN

191117095459-prince-andrew-papers-exlarge-169


 

Dr Oz Interview with Cherlyn Cadle: 5 Key Insights

The Plunder YouTube Channel [see video below] has provided some useful coverage of the Dr. Oz interview with Letters from Christopher author Cherlyn Cadle.

Thus far TCRS has refrained from commenting on Cadle’s book, or on Cadle herself. Cadle has certainly been able to court a fair amount of publicity, and as a result her book has already been reviewed about 200 times.

Via Dr. Oz we learn that it’s not only the Watts family that have felt duped in some way, but the Rzuceks too. There was an impression that the Watts book was going to be quite a spiritual book; a book about Watts having some sort of Damascus Moment. Although there are elements of this in the book, the main thrust of the spiritual side of things comes from the claim that Watts was demon possessed. That’s why he committed this crime.

What does Dr. Oz make of this contention?

Fullscreen capture 20191113 013734

1. Demon Possession = Plausible Motive?

Cadle’s book highlights some paranormal activity in the Watts home. Mysterious lights that burn late into the night, and a disembodied child’s voice giggling, scaring the bejesus out of a cadaver dog. The dog handler had “a very odd feeling” as a result of this.

Taking PLUNDER’s word for it, Dr. Oz seemed to view Cadle’s frankly ridiculous contention that Watts killed his family because he was possessed by a demon as “plausible. ” Plausible? Based on what? Based on Watts simply saying so!

Fullscreen capture 20191113 060330

The word demon doesn’t appear once in the discovery, not in the First Confession, nor in the Second. The word appears 11 times in Cadle’s book, however, though half of those references have nothing to do with Watts, but are instead general references to the concept. Like this:

Fullscreen capture 20191113 093923

There you have it. Certain cases can be explained in no other way than demon possession.

It makes sense that Watts would be amenable to the idea of an author susceptible to the idea of demon possession taking on his story of demon possession like a hand inside a glove. His story is essentially letting himself off the hook entirely for the crime. It has nothing to do with him, or the circumstances, or the actual people involved. What happened is an evil force swooped in through the window while he was yawning and jumped into his mouth. The next thing he realized he woke up and he’d killed his family. Blaming what he did on some dark magical entity is another way of not being accountable for his crimes. It’s part of the ongoing circus that is the aftermath of a criminal case not going to trial. This is the result.

And this entity arrived on the scene – surprise, surprise – just when Watts met Kessinger. And of course Kessinger herself is vaguely associated with evil as well.

Fullscreen capture 20191113 094443

This time Watts became “darker” doesn’t quite jibe with what he said to Coder on August 15th, does it?

Fullscreen capture 20191113 094620

Watts has quite a simple explanation – in Cadle’s book – not only for why he committed the crime [“I realized I had a demon inside of me…” – page 222] but also for why he should be absolved [“I knew the demon had come out of me and I had been forgiven”].

In her conclusion, at the end of her book, Cadle – who had written this book to address Watts’ deliverance – suddenly pulls a U-turn. Now, at the very end, she professes to not know much about demon possession. Instead she signs off saying Watts was convinced he was possessed weeks before the murders, but Cadle washes her hands from assessing his statement one way or another. She doesn’t know much about it. But she doesn’t doubt it either. She recommends he seeks professional help [which of course he doesn’t do, because a professional would come to quite a different conclusion]. And so everything is left nicely in the air for everyone to pick and choose whichever level of this story suits them. Maybe a little demon possessed, maybe a lot. Maybe demon possessed, maybe not.

Cadle also provides a handy explanation at the end of her book for WHY [in all caps, and bold] Watts did what he did. She says she’s afraid the answer is easy. And then she provides the answer. Well, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with demon possession.

Fullscreen capture 20191113 013811

2. Dr. Oz Verdict on Demon Possession = Inconclusive

Despite Cadle’s 11 references to demonic possession in her 267 word tome, and in spite of Dr. Oz’s apparent endorsement of the theory, Dr. Oz’s panel are unsure. Hmmmm. What can the expert panel really say about Watts being possessed by a demon [what kind of demon], and then killing three members of his family. Why did the demon want to kill his family? What they do ever do to him [the demon?]

So they – like Cadle – can’t quite commit to the idea either, but they can’t seem to commit to calling it ludicrous either. Their assessment is essentially a shrug. An expert shrug, mind you.

So much for experts weighing in on mental illness, psychology and motive.

Fullscreen capture 20191113 060534

3. Fresh Content = Groundbreaking Analysis?

A fair amount of Cadle’s book is a regurgitation of the discovery. Some of that spilled over into this interview with Dr. Oz.

Fullscreen capture 20191113 060056

Now, during the Second Confession in February, Watts referred on three occasions to not being able to let go once he had his hands around Shan’ann’s neck. Here they are:

a) At the sentencing he heard the prosecutor said it takes 2-4 minutes to strangle someone to death, so “Why couldn’t I just let go?”…He believes SHANANN may have been praying. 

b) “I feel like in the back of my head…that was gonna happen…and just like, at the end of the conversation, it was just like, that’s what happened…I just wished I could’ve let go.”

c) Time seemed to stand still and he saw his life disappearing before his eyes but he couldn’t let go.

So it seems Watts was demon possessed 5 times. Twice when he attempted to strangle his children. Once when he strangled Shan’ann. And twice more when the children revived and he was possessed again, and strangled them again. It’s not clear whether the demon drove him to work, and whether the demon walked him up to the oil tanks, or whether the demon dug Shan’ann’s grave. We’re also not 100% sure if the demon took the plea deal, or whether Chris Watts did.

Now, if you don’t mind, let’s open the curtain a tad on this freak show, and let some TCRS into the room. Just for a moment.Fullscreen capture 20191113 013535

There’s actually a pretty simple reason Watts couldn’t take his hands off his wife’s neck. Had he done so,  had he hesitated halfway through murdering his wife, she would have fought back, and that would have been the end of him, his affair and his glittering happily ever after.

Screenshot 2019-02-21 at 5.58.52 PM

If Nut Gate was bad, had Watts let go right then, he would have experienced House Gate. She would take the house, get full custody and make sure the world knew what a rotten, abusive, philandering swine he was. But long before any of that happened, had Watts let go, the first thing Shan’ann would have done before punching him in the face – she would have screamed. And that scream would have spoken volumes. It would have woken the kids and the neighbors, and Deeter, and it wouldn’t have stopped until Watts had packed his bags and left with his tail between his legs.Fullscreen capture 20191113 013358

 

4. “Deeter didn’t like Watts…”

This might be the #1 insight from the Dr. Oz show. I’m not sure it’s true, but it’s certainly better than #1, #2 and #3. I seem to recall Sandi Rzucek or some family friend or neighbor saying how Watts “loved that dog”. Hold on, let’s check and make sure. Ah, here it is:

Fullscreen capture 20191113 100745Fullscreen capture 20191113 100810

Chris Watts’ pet was howling like he was ‘being punished’ day the family disappeared. – Radar Online

If Deeter didn’t like Watts, why did Watts like the dog?

If the dog didn’t like Watts why did he spare Deeter’s life?

If the dog didn’t like Watts, why was Watts concerned about the dog when he was at the well site?

Interestingly, Cadle spells the dog’s name Deeter and Dieter in her book. Who knows. If Deeter really didn’t like Watts, perhaps that’s why Deeter Gate happened. Deeter wanted Kessinger to see Watts’ family, and wanted to get him into trouble, and so he did on July 14th when Deeter led her upstairs.

Was Deeter demon possessed…?

deeter-dieter-watts-dog

Maybe Deeter was demon possessed too, and that’s why Deeter Gate happened. Maybe that’s why everything happened.

Fullscreen capture 20191113 060441

5. Is there a doctor in the house?

The biggest insight into the show isn’t an insight, it’s the absence of an insight. The biggest insight is you have a doctor who doesn’t say anything about the THRIVE patches that are an idiosyncrasy in this case. He says nothing about lupus or the significant narrative surrounding the health – or sickliness – of Shan’ann and the children. Not a peep about Oxycodone either.

It’s called Dr. Oz isn’t it? Well, where is he?

More:

Dr Oz Interview with Chris Watts’ Neighbor Nate Trinastich: 5 Key Insights – CrimeRocket

Chris Watts: the slip-of-the-tongue – in the Sermon on the Driveway – that we all missed

When we add the 7-minute Sermon on the Porch to the 8-minute Sermon on the Driveway, we have a 15-minute statement by Chris Watts. That’s a whole lotta talkin’. When compared to Patrick Frazee, who a year later hasn’t made a peep to the press, these Sermons were – and remain – true crime gold. This is essentially his first public version, which he gave against the advice of his mother-in-law, and it preceded his First Confession by roughly 24 hours and change.

Very likely the Feds and cops also studied the same footage like hawks before bringing in the Silver Fox and subjecting him to a slightly tougher line of questioning.

It’s possible Watts thought he did a pretty good job during these Sermons. That he’d convinced those asking questions. They asked something, he answered it, and then that was it. Easy. Done. Back to business as usual? Not quite, as it turned out. The moment Watts opened his mouth he was on a slippery slope.

There is a lot to mine out of these 15 minutes. The Sermon on the Porch alone is a goldmine for those interested in true crime statement analysis and figuring out body language. When is a tell a tell, and when isn’t it? When is a blink, a stutter, a sway, a folding of the arms relevant and when isn’t it? It takes intuition, sensitivity, gut feel and what we might call the X-factor to know the difference. You either have that intuition or you don’t, although some of it certainly develops with experience.

No two criminals are alike, but criminal psychology is similar enough that there is some intertexuality between tells. The most significant slip-of-the-tongue in the Sermon of the Driveway is one 99% probably missed. It was easy to miss because it occurs in the very last frame of the very last moments of the Sermon. By then most people had found what they want and moved on.

When we go to the final seconds of the Sermon on the Driveway, since Watts has sort of let his guard down, sniggering about how much he likes his t-shirt, a reporter crosses the psychological sand, and asks a question that reveals the press are pretty suspicious after all, and haven’t been playing all their cards. The question, when it finally comes, comes in the final 20 seconds of the 15-minutes interview:

REPORTER: You guys have a baby on the way…

WATTS [Blinks]: Mm-hm. [Watts starts to sways a lot here, and sighs].

REPORTER: You’re about to have your third child…

WATTS: Mm-hm. [A second intake of breath.]

A YouTuber referring to this moment described Watts as angry. But was he? He may have been annoyed at being asked the question, but if he was, there’s no sign of anger. It’s not in anything he says, if anything it’s what he doesn’t say, or do. And that’s an introvert for you.

More likely Watts is shitting his pants right here. He’s gotten through the quarter of an hour just fine dodging the issue of Shan’ann’s pregnancy. In fact that word is the one word he doesn’t bring up. He never brings up the word pregnant through either the Sermon on the Porch or the Sermon on the Driveway. Ultimately it’s brought up right at the end, by the reporters, and this effectively shuts down the interview. By invoking this aspect, Watts likely panics, and when he panics he shuts down. He has nothing to say because when the chips are down, he has no game.

The Feds watching this probably took real notice of this. Tread carefully around this guy. Don’t push him. Be nice, get him talking, keep him talking. The DNA for Watts interrogation, the strategy of it, was laid here.

To get inside the apparatus of Watts’ mind, what he’s doing – or trying to do – through these Sermons is convince an audience of just one [Kessinger] that he’s fine, everything is fine, even though his family is missing. But while doing that, he needs to make sure he doesn’t say anything about the pregnancy. When the media does, he makes sure it’s unusable. The fact that Watts is so secretive about the pregnancy, so shut up about it, does lend some credence to the idea – the possibility – that as late as Monday, and in the few hours leading up to these interviews, Kessinger herself was still living in a fairy tale, unaware of the pregnancy. And by not mentioning it, Watts was doing his damnedest not to burst that bubble.

Conversely, if she knew about it, and he knew she knew, why not admit Shan’ann was pregnant? Why kill her on the very same day she was going to do the gender reveal? Wasn’t it because Kessinger didn’t know, and if she did, she’d drop him and run the other way?

More:

The #1 Word Missing from the Sermon on the Porch, #1 Document Missing from the Discovery Documents and the #1 Evidence Photos We Still Haven’t Seen

“Chris Watts is a sociopath” or “Chris Watts is a narcissistic sociopath” – No, he isn’t, but can you articulate why not?

At 1:50 the YouTuber providing unofficial psychoanalysis of the Watts case [besides Dr. Phil] diagnoses him as a sociopath. He isn’t a sociopath. Are you able to say why?

image (1)Fullscreen capture 20191106 180136

narcissistic-sociopath

The narcissist in the sociopath will believe that they are better than everyone else. The sociopath in the narcissist, in turn, will have a total lack of regard for others and will tend to violate these rights with no compassion for their victims.

One worrying consequence of a sociopath that has narcissist tendencies is that generally, sociopaths do not care if they are criticised by others, as they are not interested in the opinions of other people.

The narcissistic sociopath, however, will react aggressively to negative criticism as the narcissist cannot tolerate any judgement on their behaviour.

Source: Learning-Mind.com