The mainstream media, and most [but not all] covering the Chris Watts case on YouTube are referring to big chunks of Watts’ Second Confession as if it’s fact. When CNN’s headline [on Google Search] reads Chris Watts’ 4-year-old pleaded for her life, attorney says it reads as fact.
When People report on Bella’s “last words” – ‘Daddy, No!’: Chris Watts Hears Daughter’s Haunting Last Words ‘Every Day’ in Prison – and Dr. Phil does a show PREMISED on these last words [words Watts’ tells us are her last words – and enough in media and on social media recycle this premise, then it begins to appear as fact.
Is it fact?
We must remember this hasn’t been tested, examined, argued or verified in court. A judge and jury haven’t ruled on it, or even thought about it. Evidence hasn’t been led in the proper forum in support or to contradict it. And let’s be clear, a Dr. Phil show or a confession from a man who murdered his family, lied to that family, lied to his witness, lied to the media, lied on a polygraph test [about everything], and lied throughout his first “confession” including to his own father, this hardly constitutes evidence. It’s testimony. It’s a version. That’s all it is.
But what if it is true? And what if there is convincing evidence to prove that it is?
Isn’t there convincing evidence in the “living shadows” conspiracy? Was the conspiracy never a conspiracy at all, instead civilians and armchair detectives stumbled on a game changer that law enforcement [and everyone else] missed?
If this is the case why hasn’t the mainstream media reported on the shadow theories? If it’s such a game changer, why hasn’t the media said anything about it? Why hasn’t law enforcement released a statement?
On the one hand, Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke has referred to this as part of his contention, his assumption, that Watts’ confession is legitimate, or mostly truthful. According to USAToday:
Rourke said some pieces of evidence match Watts’ most recent confession, including footage from a neighbor’s security camera that shows another shadow aside from Watts’ by his truck when he was loading Shanann’s body into the back seat.
In the video released by the Weld County District Attorney’s Office, Watts is seen standing by his work truck when another shadow appears to be moving toward him, and Watts leans down to pick something up, likely one of the girls.
That video “would be consistent with his statements that the girls were alive when they left the house and walked out to the truck,” Rourke said.
What Rourke is saying is that Watts’ statement is consistent with the “appearance” of a shadow which doesn’t seem to be Watts’ moving towards him. Separately Rourke says, “I’m assuming what he is telling is truthful”, which suggests he believes the shadow theory as well. But he doesn’t say that. He says the scenario is consistent with the appearance of the shadows.
The article goes on to emphasize that Watts has never testified under oath, with the threat of perjury. In other words, whenever he’s spoken – other than the polygraph test where he had to authorize it – there haven’t been legal consequences – arguably, attached to his spoken words, as crazy as that sounds. And Rourke has maintained, even after the Second Confession Watts’ consistency in another area – his lack of real remorse:
“I don’t think that everything that came out of his mouth during those interviews was the truth because I honestly don’t believe that this monster has the ability to have remorse at all.”
None of the bold text [referring to the commission of the murders of Shan’ann and the children respectively] resonated with me, although certain aspects certainly stood out [such as Shan’ann feet thudding on the stairs]. What did stand out for me was this, and it comes at very end of the marathon interview. When I heard Watts’ answer, for the first time I considered the scenario of the children alive and taken to CERVI 319 as a real possibility.
The area circle in red can be heard at 1:05:39 in the last half hour of the five-and-a-half-hour interview [Part 2 of the Enhanced Audio Clip].
LEE: So do you think if we would have said…what do you think…?
Lee is asking what should they have said to him that would have gotten Watts to tell the truth, or do so sooner.
WATTS [Long pause]: If you would have said…if…the video had showed them in the truck…you probably would have had to have lied…You said you saw the kids in the truck…I mean, you’d have to lie to get me to say it…but, it might have been that.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF “LIVING” SHADOW/S
The best evidence in support of “living” shadows is at exactly 1:00 in the clip below. In order to get the full effect, it’s better to view the video in real time, as it were, but to hover the cursor over the 1:00 mark and click repeatedly back to it.
When viewed again and again it does seem convincing. It does appear as if a shadow is approaching Watts and he bends down to pick it up. I won’t do a complete analysis of that here, that deserves a complete chapter in a separate narrative [TWO FACE: ANNIHILATION], but I will spend a little more time dealing with the evidence against it.
EVIDENCE AGAINST “LIVING” SHADOWS
Those who claim the surveillance video is “clear”, “convincing” and “unambiguous” are looking through a tiny keyhole, fuzzing out the background, and making the case that tiny shapes within the fuzzy keyhole area are absolutely clear evidence of an extraordinary game changer.
If a UFO and an alien is ever positively identified and confirmed, that will be a massive game changer for our understanding of the universe, the existence of God and our place in the cosmos.
The shadows are a little like that. A single moment that could be something that changes everything. And this is the size of the viewfinder.
Seeing frozen images doesn’t do justice to the claim and most important, one doesn’t see the shadow advancing from the left of the frame, while Watts moves in and bends down from the right.
What I want to emphasize here is just how blown up that little circle [above] is in these screengrabs. It’s so big Watts is almost reduced to stickman, and his body becomes jagged and irregular.
This is the original view. When I first viewed this footage I mistake a “tail” under the right rear wheel of the truck as a cat flicking its tail. I only connected the tail to the idly flapping flag after watching it several times, and especially when the lighting increases as the dawn breaks.
In one of the videos, even the shadows are ascribed identities. One shadow is Bella, and the other is Ceecee because it’s “shorter”.
it’s interesting that the shadows “move” towards Watts in both instances when he’s bending down. This suggests the possibility that the two elements are contingent; in other words if he wasn’t bending down there would be no shadow moving towards him.
Again, I don’t wish to explain or elaborate on this in more detail right here, right now, but I will do so in ANNIHILATION.
Is Watts “settling” his children, who are both alive, inside the truck? If one of the children was murdered with a blanket, why don’t we see this blanket? Doesn’t it have a shadow too? Or was Ceecee “wearing it”, but it was so titled wrapped around her it had no cape to throw a shadow?
Let’s face it, settling living children and settling dead bodies could take a similar amount of time. While the one scenario would involve making the children comfortable in sleeping quarters without their car seats, and arguably in a vehicle they’ve never been in before, the other scenario would involve making dead bodies not visible, concealing them from casual view.
We also have some useful footage to examine, in terms of how the shadows spool and watercolor, when Watts pulls the truck away and walks back. We can see the shadows splaying out on his approach as well as on his return to the truck.
In the image below Watts shadow moves outward in a triangular shape, with the narrow point of the pyramid ending under his heel.
As he moves right beside the light source, his shadow whips around to the side. It’s not completely clear in the screengrab, so have a look at the shadow dance in the video as well at 4:53 and again at 5:09.
This is Watts stepping back out onto the driveway for the last time. Notice the shadows are dragging to his right, towards the surveillance camera, and there appears to be a double-effect. Also the shadow isn’t long but kind of a squat, puddle-shape.
Just one short step later and one shadow already swoops around and begins to stretch out ahead of him. Meanwhile a second shadow [is there someone else floating in the air?] smudges vaguely to his right.
Watts went to a lot of trouble to hide three bodies at CERVI 319. In theory he could have dumped the bodies on the side of the road somewhere, and it would have been much more difficult to connect them to him, except for the problem that doing so would let the world know immediately that a triple homicide had just happened.
The effort Watts made to move his wife so far from the scene of the crime, and the cleaning effort in the aftermath, and the many lies, these are all a mismatch to the glib suggestion that Watts casually took his children along for the ride, had no idea what he intended, and casually killed both of them, allowing one to witness the death of the other. There also just happened to be two oil tanks, one for each child, a thought that apparently didn’t occur to Watts on his way there, and apparently not when he was planning to go there first thing early on Sunday evening [and arguably the machinations for that plan was set in motion as early as Friday midday].
We know Watts changed his clothing, possibly not once but twice, before returning home, and we also know Watts used “plausible deniability” to stage this crime. The staging of the wedding ring is a good example inside the home, the claim that he was “loading tools” and that’s why he backed into the driveway was his plausible account for that scenario and Watts work detail at CERVI 319 was a cover for what he was actually doing out there early on Monday morning.
He uses plausible deniability to suggest things that aren’t true, and in this case it includes many technical things, such as the Vivint evidence, GPS data, cell phone logs including calls and texts to Shan’ann after she was dead.
None of this data proves Watts did anything. Instead it tends to prove he didn’t. Now we can apparently add the technical addition of discombobulated shadows in the surveillance video that “proves” the children were alive. This is “proof” that Watts didn’t kill them in the home, and supposedly casts doubt on the premeditated nature of the murder.
What can we extrapolate from the psychology of this approach? What sort of criminal psychology may be at work here? Well, it’s quite simple.
If the shadow/s isn’t Bella or Ceecee, and if they weren’t alive, then the entire scenario about a murder at CERVI 319 is just another fiction in a long list of lies. Make no mistake, an awful lot hinges on what we’re seeing [or not seeing] in those shadows on the driveway. So the #1 Reason Watts may be telling the truth may also be the #1 Reason he’s lying.