The word “rage” appears only twice in the 29-page CBI Report documenting Chris Watts’ Second Confession. The first instance is at the top of page 8:
The second instance is at the bottom of page 12:
I won’t be doing any long lectures explaining why the “just snapped” scenario is bogus and bullshit, because that would be repeating tired arguments fielded months ago. If you haven’t read them yet, be my guest.
In the Discovery Documents there are a couple of additional instances of “snapping”, “losing it” and “rage”:
Although Watts tries to paint a portrait of himself as overcome with emotion, and the crime as a crime of passion, we had virtually zero evidence of anyone else – including Shan’ann – experiencing Watts’ rage. There’s no sign of it at work, nor in his background. There’s none of it in his marriage, and his mistress never mentions any anger issues either. On the contrary, if anyone is somewhat petulant or irritable it’s not Watts, it’s either Kessinger or his wife. That’s not necessarily a compliment to Watts, to say that he was extremely cool and even crushed in on himself. This may have made him seem suave and mild-mannered to Kessinger, but pathetic, and meek – at times – to Shan’ann, who was more extroverted than he was.
The Watts Family Murders weren’t committed in a fit of rage. Premeditation by definition takes the emotional dimension out of a crime and replaces it with cool, calculated, precise execution, disposal of bodies and covering up of the crime scene.
If anything, both Shan’ann and Kessinger describe Watts as sweet-natured, Shan’ann realizing he was a “really nice guy” because he let her lay in his lap for 2.5 hours on a drive back from Myrtle Beach. Kessinger, in her exclusive with the Denver Post said although she barely knew him, he was a good listener. So the whole rage monster deal doesn’t work even if Watts would like it to. It’s just not who he is.
So what does an authentic ANNIHILATION driven by rage look and feel like?
Well, like this:
Fox News describes the Smith Shooting appropriately as a murder rampage.
The Smith case involves the murder of his two children [while sparing the third] and two adults, one of them a random bystander who happened to be at his brother’s apartment when Smith arrived there. Two other people were shot at the apartment, but the 47-year-old woman and 33-year-old man both survived. Smith’s shooting arguably qualifies for the definition of a Mass Shooting since four people were killed indiscriminately and spontaneously.
Although the Smith Shooting more closely resembles the “He just snapped” scenario, it’s obvious he didn’t just snap out of the blue either. The trigger was the notion that his own brother had betrayed him with his wife, and vice versa. There also seems to be a religious aspect, with Smith feeling emasculated not only as man but by what he may have felt justified regarding as “forces of evil”. The point is, it’s reductionist to boil down in a crime like the Smith Shooting as motivated by rage and a man snapping. That said, the Smith Shooting more closely fits that definition [if one insists on applying it] than the Watts case does.
This begs the question – if rage wasn’t the operative emotion in the Chris Watts case, what was?
I don’t want to argue that zero anger or zero frustration was at issue here. There had to have been. Murder itself is a violent, aggressive act. But we’re trying to make the case for some other emotion – far more significant than anger – being the operative feeling in Watts’ murderous and mendacious heart.