The first reply tp Frank’s comment, from one of Armchair Dectective’s subs, says it all.
It’s shocking to see in black and white but the YouTube creator with the largest following in the Chris Watts case is pitching a narrative where Watts himself isn’t solely responible for wiping out his family. And somehow from that conspriacy theory, this becomes a cover-up by Shan’ann’s family?
True crime unfortunately exposes not just the perilous legal journey to find justice, but just how often truth is perverted.
Once upon a time facts and evidence were used to prove what happened. Now they’re used to pitch whatever is popular, whatever people want to believe, and there’s a cash incentive to selling these tabloid pitches to the mindless mob. Welcome to the True Crime Colosseum where Social Media Gladiators pretend to champion truth and justice to rapturous applause.
It’s the same thing we see in true crime only on a worldwide scale. How do we tell the difference between the science and the science fiction? Part of how we navigate through the mindfield of nonsense is understanding why it’s happening, and why weak minds are more susceptible to conspiracies.
Conspiracies at a time of an international emergency are very, very dangerous. Those most susceptible to conspiracies are those lacking discernment [the weak-minded], as Obi-Wan confirms:
Right now, having achieved my goal of 10 000 subs on YouTube, I’m focused on updating theTrue Crime Rocket Science Patreon channel multiple times a day, covering everything from the Kessinger Tapes, to audiobooks [Scott Peterson right now] to insightful graphs, projections and analysis on the CoronaVirus Pandemic.
I don’t mind keeping CrimeRocket going, but I’ll no longer being doing it for free. If you’d like more CrimeRocket content on CrimeRocket, consider making a $5 donation on Patreon. If I receive $50 or more I’ll resume 1xweekly posts/updates here for one month. $100 or more = 2xweekly posts/updates and so on. If you do donate with a view to reviving CrimeRocket.com be sure to leave a message saying that.
Bear in mind there is a lot of quality content on the Patreon channel that’s even better than what you’ve enjoyed here including:
Chris Watts: 113 posts
Audiobooks: 59 posts [Includes 3 books on Chris Watts].
JonBenet Ramsey: 56 posts
Gannon Stauch: 26 posts
Scott Peterson: 20 posts [Includes 1 book].
Nichol Kessinger: 15
CoronaVirus: 30 [Includes the popular My CoronaVirus Diary]
The favorite theory of the legions following the Chris Watts case [and the YouTuber Armchair Detective] firmly believe 1) Chris Watts killed his children one in front of the other after a failed first attempt 2) had an accessory help him commit triple murder and 3) his accessory knew his wife was pregnant all along and didn’t really care.
It’s the favorite theory for a simple reason – it’s shocking. Because it’s shocking, it must be true, right?
Wrong. The Vang Gogh myth is an excellent reality in check in this regard. The favorite theory of the legions of art fans following the life and times of one of the world’s most popular [and expensive] artists [and the Van Gogh Museum] firmly believe 1) Vincent van Gogh cut off his ear 2) was mad and 3) committed suicide.
It’s the favorite theory for a simple reason – it’s shocking, and people like to be shocked. They want to be titillitated. In a world that operates on hyperbole and rewards exaggeration, it’s no surprise that no one really cares about the facts or the evidence. They want the version that suits their own depraved sensibilities best.
But what happens when we challenge the popular mythology? What happens when one goes to some effort to check the facts, verify the information and make sure? Well, history tends to be rewritten, even in a case like Vincent van Gogh where that history is over 100 years old.
Take the trait that Van Gogh is most famous for around the world – the mad artist. The most basic thing everyone believes isn’t even true.
This assessment isn’t just one random publication, or written by a single reporter in some arbitrary journal. It made world headlines at the time. The time being September 2016 when the Van Gogh museum invited around 30 international medical experts, professors and art historians to settle the issue definitively, once and for all. Guess what? They couldn’t. They couldn’t offer a modern diagnosis, and instead offered something more “prosaic” – they sort of deconstructed the original diagnosis, which was this:
…temporal lobe epilepsy precipitated by the use of absinthe in the presence of an early limbic lesion….
And essentially replaced it with this:
…temporal lobe epilepsy precipitated by the use of absinthein the presence of an early limbic lesion….
In other words, they agreed that all of Van Gogh’s symptoms couldn’t really be explained by a disorder or a disease, but it could be explained by a drinking problem. Lousy huh? Instead of a mad artist he was simply an occasionally drunk artist.
Even so, despite this unshocking [and thus unsatisfying assessment] by the medical luminaries, the Van Gogh museum who’d hosted the symposium went ahead with their exhibition eponymously titled On the Verge of Insanity. Everyone loved it.
What lesson do we learn from this? We see that human nature isn’t a reliable conduit for truth. Human nature is prone to projection and transference. Our truth tends to be self-justifying. So where can one turn for a neutral view of the truth, if not to one another, if not to the media, if not to experts, skilled lie detectors in law enforcement, historians and – oftetimes – even medical professionals?
Turn to True Crime Rocket Science – the most credible and authentic voice in true crime.
In recent weeks Armchair Detective has been doing overtime trying to prove that Nichol Kessinger was at the Watts home. If shadows can have double [or triple, or quadruple] meanings, if alarms could be triggered by anyone, why not semantics too?
It’s established here that when Chris Watts refers to Nickole Atkinson, he calls her “Nicole.” When he refers to his mistress, it’s “Nikki.” This is an incredible insight that changes everything!
Let’s look at this clip in context though, shall we?
The reporter is asking about Shan’ann’s friends calling frantically yesterday. Who else can it be except Nickole Atkinson? AD spells it “Nicole” which is not the right spelling for Nickole Atkinson or Nichol Kessinger, but two years later, why would anyone expect him to get silly details like that right?
And now the reveal – are you ready to have your socks blown off?
WATTS: When Nikki’s [snaps fingers] son…uh…tried to move the door around…when they were trying to get in the door, garage door-
The audio cuts abruptly at this point.
That couldn’t be a reference to “Nicole”, it just couldn’t be. Armchair Detective says this was a slip; it wasn’t Nikki’s son…it was NIKKI [snap snap snap]. He said “Nikki” so it’s a slip, right, he can ONLY be referring to Kessinger, right? Has he nailed it? Was it actually Nichol Kessinger who set off the Vivint alert on Sunday night, early Monday morning?
Uuhhhhhh…hold on…why does the discovery refer to exactly what Watts was saying to Coonrod when he stood beside Trinastich’s TV: that Nicolas and “Nicole” [Atkinson] set off the alarm…
So the alarm thing isn’t a slip.
How about the Nikki-thing? Was that a slip?
Shan’ann and her friends [like Cristina Meacham] often referred to their friend Nickole Atkinson as Nikki, including during the Live she did from the rooftop pool in late June 2018 when Nickole won her auto bonus.
There are also references by Chris Watts to Nickole Atkinson as Nikki while talking to Officer Lines:
And Nichol Kessinger referring to Watts referring to Nickole Atkinson as Nikki.
So let’s do a logic check. We saw Nicolas Atkinson on the scene for almost an hour, actively interfering. We saw Nickole’s car. Witnesses saw her. What were they doing there? Trying to get into the house over several hours. They were looking for someone they cared about. The interference was such that Watts called Nickole Atkinson [how did he know to call her, because he saw her on the ring doorbell camera] and told them to quit messing with his door – because that’s what they were doing. And because that’s when they set the alarm off, purposefully and deliberately.
Pick your reality:
Or did Nichol Kessinger really levitate to the scene and levitate out of it, for no reason, while she was on a phone call late on a Sunday night when her adulerer’s spouse was due to come. Her and her car unseen. And why would Watts who was super careful for weeks on end not to let Shan’ann know about the affair, allow alarms to go off when he was there? Would he like to alert Shan’ann, the neighborhood and leave digital traces on the security system for what he’s about to do, or would he like to not do that?
ALL NEW on Patreon: TWO FACE EPILOGUE [Book 9 in the TWO FACE series] available as an audiobook. First review of the intro and first chapter:
In a recent episode, a YouTube creator presents what appears to be a very elaborate and technical spreadsheet of timeline data. It appears, at face value, to be accurate.
During the episode, the creator and another party discuss evidence which they both agree would stand up in a court of law. The entire 66 minute spiel is predicated on a single moment at 22:52 when the Vivint sensor is activated.
This Vivint signal means, according to the creator and his fellow-commentator, that Nichol Kessinger entered the house. It’s also their hypothesis that Kessinger spent the night at the house, and left about half an hour after Watts did the following morning, making her an accessory to the entire crime as they see it.
It’s an interesting theory except at 23:20, 28 minutes after this alert, Watts and Kessinger were still talking on the phone. So were the couple standing together in his home talking to one another on the phone?
This Vivint alert, like the dodgy shadows story, is manufactured to have only a single explanation, and for this creator it’s always the same – it’s how Nichol Kessinger had to have been there, because she had to be an accessory to a triple murder.
While this creator seems very confident in his assessment, repeatedly asserting in this video that “law enforcement know this”, the title of the video shows he knows better than that too. He uses the words “seem to prove” and a question mark as a sort of disclaimer, and he never refers to Nichol Kessinger as Nichol Kessinger, but as NK, knowing that to do so would get him into a world of trouble. The content of the video says something else, however.
This is one of the most unambiguous episodes I’ve ever seen from this creator where he tries to link an innocent person to a crime, while emphasizing how unshakeably true and defensible his “evidence” is.
Of course, there could be numerous innocent explanations for the Vivint alert, one of them being letting the dog out, or letting some air in. Armchair Detective’s stock and trade is trying to figure out how innocent explanations may not be, and his audience, who are addicted to being titillated by this tabloid-style of one sensational claim after another, love it.
One aspect I found useful in the analysis of the timeline, was the router data showing Watts’ activity [as his phone or other device connects to the router] between 01:53 and 03:00 while Vivint shows no activity. While this doesn’t necessarily mean Watts himself was moving and thus the source of these connections, because devices make connections for a host of reasons as various apps automatically update etc., it does correspond to the TCRS theory that Watts never went to bed that night, and Shan’ann was murdered shortly after stepping in the door.
Another useful titbit was Shan’ann’s iWatch connecting to the router when Watts arrived home from the well site, suggesting he removed it prior to burial.
In general though, the confirmation bias in this particular video isn’t just alarming, it’s infuriating. Be careful, wherever you are, that your shadow doesn’t tear itself loose and get you into trouble.
Postscript:In the video below, at 19:50 the creator suggests – without naming names – that “some people might be friends with Nichol Kessinger…” This appears to be a slur to undermine arguments such as this one and others posted on CrimeRocket. A counterargument against a conspiracy isn’t valid, so their argument goes, not because it’s lunacy and illogical, but because of some relationship or agenda with Nichol Kessinger [in other words, it’s a conspiracy within a conspiracy]. Of course it was this site and via posts on Shakedown that first identified Kessinger to the world, before the mainstream media did or even Kessinger herself. Try to figure that one out.
I’m constantly loading my own content onto Patreon and to some extent onto YouTube, so I really don’t have time or the inclination – or the pettiness – to set up or “be behind” so-called hate channels. That some are convinced I do says more, I think, about you and type of person you are.
The protocols of this site applies in this regard: argue the case, not with each other. When people get banned on my platforms it’s invariably because they can’t understand, and won’t abide by this simple premise .
argue the case, not with each other
If you argue, try to do it using the ordinary lexicon we have, without expletives, slurs, exclamation marks, all caps and all the rest. Try not to be about drama and triggering and reaction; try to think cooly and calmly for a change. Many can’t, won’t or do not want to do that, and I don’t want those sorts of people associated with TCRS.
Everyone who knows true crime knows how hard it is to keep the discussions clean and sensible. When we do though, we learn knew things, and we can actually start to see through all the noise and find out something new. I set a high standard, and one I acknowledge puts most people off. CrimeRocket and TCRS isn’t meant for most people, it’s meant for a more educated, more disciplined and more discerning audience. People who read. People who think. People who’re able to spell and modulate their own behavior. People who are honest and care about the material.
If we’re here to talk about true cime, let’s talk about true crime, not about ourselves or someone else. Once we understand the case, sure, then we can reflect on how it impacts society or certain individuals, but typically that’s a very private and personal matter, and it’s different for everyone. Almost two years after the incident, we are – sadly – still very, very far from understanding this case, or ourselves, much better than before the Chris Watts case.
And so, as soon as true crime devolves into pundits bickering with each other, or about one another, it’s no longer true crime. It’s me-me-me, and it’s little more than a cynical popularity circus. When that happens the leading edge of what we come, and still can learn about these true crime cases floats out the window. It’s for this reason TCRS only reluctantly wades into conspiracies, not to attack those behind it, but to counter, debunk and fight for the authentic narrative. That has been and always will be the position of TCRS.
For the record, I agree 100% with Christina Randall’s position on Nichol Kessinger as communicated at 10:10 and here, at 10:57 in this video review of the latest TV coverage:
Cognitive Bias. That’s what it’s called when people see things in the dark. Let me illustrate it with an example. My wallet is on a desk right in front of me and in a moment, it’s going to be stolen. I think I hear someone behind the door. The next thing the lights go out, I feel a slight brush and a thud, and when I turn the light on and open the door, my wallet’s gone and so is whoever took it.
The cognitive bias here is through the non-neutral word “stolen”, and that there is a someone, and that that someone came into the room when I couldn’t see and stole the wallet in the dark, and then disappeared.
The bias is there because the wallet’s disappearance is connected with the idea of someone in the dark before you’re lead into that scenario. So you start to fill in the blanks ahead of time.
Here’s the same thing without cognitive bias. My wallet is on a desk right in front of me. I hear a noise and turn towards it. The lights go out. I feel something and hear a thud. When I turn on the light the wallet is gone.
It turns out the wallet is on floor. It never left the room. When I turned in my seat, and was momentarily blinded by the power going off, I happened to knock it off myself. When I turned the light on and didn’t see it, I first assumed [through cognitive bias] that someone took it.
The missing key to unraveling this micro-mystery is the sound and light of the door opening and closing behind the imputed thief. There is no sound and there is no opening and closing of the door. But we don’t think that far because we’re trying to connect the wallet to the imagined someone.
Now let’s apply this to the shadows moving and coming to life on the Watts driveway. Cognitive Bias on the Watts Driveway
I’m certain law enforcement were made aware of the hysteria over shadows and mark my words, they probably asked Watts about it. Perhaps they showed him pictures of the shadows as well and asked him to explain when he was loading who, where, and when. This was them offering Watts essentially the somewhat plausible possibility that his children were still alive, just as they once offered him the possibility that Shan’ann did something.
True to form he took that baton [I suspect] and ran with it this time as well. The first time I heard about the surveillance footage I assumed it was from the dashcam of a car directly opposite the Watts home, and I assumed it was essentially “smoking gun” evidence. In other words, I assumed the footage clearly showed Watts backing up his truck, loading three bodies and driving off. As it turns out, the backing up is fairly clear and the driving off is clear. The middle part with dead bodies isn’t. The second reference to the surveillance footage came from Frank Rzucek on November 19th at the sentencing hearing.
“You take them out like trash” is a clear reference to Frank imagining not only dead bodies, but dead bodies in garbage bags or bins. Frank’s description seems authentic because I don’t believe he saw anything, he simply assumed from what he did see and what he’d been told that dead bodies were loaded into the truck, and trash bags were recovered at the dumping site. The third reference came from District Attorney Michael Rourke a few minutes later.
Rourke described Watts going back into the house and to the truck “three times”. I remember this very clearly, and the message was very clear. Three trips to the truck equals three bodies.
At 04:54 Rourke describes that moment in the clip below.
ROURKE: The defendant then methodologically and calmly loaded their bodies into his work truck. Not in a hasty, or disorganized way. He was seen from the neighbor’s doorbell camera backing his truck into the driveway, going back and forth into the house and back out to the truck three different times. One time for each of their bodies.
And that sketched a particular picture as well. Quite a clear picture, one should say.
When the surveillance video was released, I was shocked by not only the poor quality of it, but also that it was so difficult to make out anything. It was also abundantly clear that at no time could you distinctly or even indistinctly see anything being loaded besides – in one instance – a red gas can. What I was suffering from, when I saw this disappointingly bad footage, is known in psychology as cognitive dissonance.
It’s similar to watching an incredible movie trailer only to find all the best scenes are in the trailer, or being led to believe some product is fabulous, but then it turns out to be a mediocre con job.
It should be noted that Rourke’s statement was factually incorrect in several respects.
1. It wasn’t the neighbor’s doorbell camera that made the recording [although there is a doorbell camera and recording in this story]. After an incredible amount of searching I eventually located a decent shot of the Trinastich camera. It’s a kind of motion detecting camera positioned just under the eave of the porch, and directed towards and over his own driveway [and coincidentally, towards Watts’ driveway].
2. Watts didn’t go three times to the truck, each time carrying a different body. It’s difficult to say how many times Watts did go back and forth, but one thing is clear, he sometimes approached the truck with nothing in his hands, and on one occasion he loaded a red gas can on the neighbor’s side.
In the strict interpretation of Rourke’s words, if Watts went back and forth three times, each time to load a body, then it means each time Watts came out of the garage he had to have been carrying/loading a body, right?
But that’s not what happens.
3. In Rourke’s description it seems pretty cut and dried. Watts came out, methodically loaded bodies, made three trips, then drove off. In fact it was a lot more disorganized than that.
After backing up his truck Watts later moved the truck forward in the driveway [behind the tree] and then made another trip back and forth, again with nothing in his hands.
Although Rourke’s point is mostly accurate that Watts was fairly methodical in how he executed the crime and disposal, it wasn’t quite as seamless and neat as this impression suggests.
So, what all these scenarios did to most of us was sketch an idea in our imaginations, while at the same time indirectly muddying it and leaving some room for error and interpretation. And so that’s what we did – we interpreted.
When the surveillance video came out it was virtually useless, but that didn’t stop many out there – because one could see whatever one wanted to, and that’s cognitive bias.
A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input.
Now I want to deal with the public’s response to the video, especially in light of the second confession, and then I’ll deal [briefly] with the lights and shadows themselves. Public Perception and Cognitive Bias
Yesterday I received this tweet.
For a split second I assumed what this meant was that new video surveillance had just been released proving/showing the girls were alive. One possibility I considered was that Watts went through a drive-through or something similar on the way to work, and CCTV footage showed his daughters sitting next to him.
In fact this is precisely what happened in the Patrick Frazee case, except the CCTV footage in that case proved [or strongly suggested] Kelsey Berreth was dead [and inside the black tote].
Surveillance’s from an ENT Credit Union shows #PatrickFrazee truck and a “black tote” in the bed of the truck. Commander says that tote plays a significant role in #KelseyBerreth disappearance. Hoping to find out what was inside it. @KKTV11News
I’m not the first person to assume…was there some additional surveillance footage floating around about the Watts case? Is there a second video?
When someone says “video evidence proving” it sounds pretty solid, doesn’t it? So when I asked to see this new evidence, it turned out to be [surprise, surprise] the very same Trinastich footage, this time with social media’s spin on it. Now a shadow is a child running around, or a shadow is a dead body being dragged or loaded etc. etc.
This is the dictionary definition of evidence.
Evidence means something is irrefutably, definitely true. Evidence is not “I believe this very strongly, it looks accurate and also thousands agree with me…”
Evidence is absolutely clear and demonstrably, self-evidently, scientifically authentic and accurate. It’s fact versus fiction.
But that’s cognitive bias for you. The world today feels like a war between what’s real and what’s not. Today enough people campaigning for something that’s not real seems to make it real, and that’s good enough for them.
Cognitive bias blown up by legions of social media dullards all echoing the same mindless fucking nonsense is a force to be reckoned with.
I’ve been fairly strident in the past to say TCRS doesn’t entertain or discuss conspiracy theories, especially not moronic conspiracies unless it’s to debunk them.
Unfortunately, because of the import of the Second Confession, it becomes unavoidable to not acknowledge this “kids were alive in the driveway” theory. And by acknowledging it it gains credibility it really doesn’t deserve. TCRS cannot disprove the ghosts in the driveway conspiracy, but…
The bad news is TSRS can’t disprove the theory of bodies rising from the dead and running around the driveway leaving behind a shadow here and there. What we can do is what any good defense team does in a difficult, and frankly untenable situation, as regards an imputed reality: raise reasonable doubt.
So let’s get practical and go to the driveway at night, and make the case not for why the conspiracy is objectively false, but why other reasonable possibilities exist. We will then argue that these other possibilities are more reasonable than the conspiracy. Worth playing for?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the image above we see the Watts driveway at night. I believe this photo was taken on Tuesday night [August 14th], when the house was vacant. Watts was interrogated by the FBI and then spent the night with the Thayers. The following day his father arrived, and he was interrogated again, he failed a polygraph and was later arrested. Hours after his arrest the body pf his wife was exhumed at a well site.
Now, in the nocturnal image of the driveway [below] note the three primary light sources on the pillars of the garage. For our purposes, the most important light sources are the two in the middle and on the right respectively. When looking through the Trinastich camera only the light source on the far left, on the wall on the outside of the Watts’ garage is visible. But this light source isn’t the operative light source for the shadows, because the truck itself is blocking the left-hand hand light source.
It’s also not the small light on the ground on the other neighbor’s side that’s flaring directly into the Trinastich camera. What we can say with certainty is that at least two bright, elevated light sources are the primary illuminating agents. Both shine towards Watts and the truck from different angles. Is that a fair statement? I think it is. Now, as soon as there are two light sources and different angles, then an object moving between them will cast two sets of shadows. Depending on the movement and the angle vis-a-vis each light source, these respective shadows will naturally vary. Is that a fair statement? So, for example if one approaches a light source directly from the front, then the shadow will be thrown directly behind the object, and this angle will remain directly behind as long as the trajectory to the light source remains the same. Is that a fair statement? But if the angle to one light source is consistent, and the object is moving, it means the angle to the other is not only different but also changing at the same time.
We don’t need to refer to hypothetical examples, however, because we see these same distortions in ordinary photos of the Watts driveway at night.
We also see these double light distortions when Shan’ann approaches the doorbell camera. When she’s almost right in front of the camera her shadow strengthens then swoops around her as she passes the light source on her left. [You can watch that here].
In photos of Watts on the driveway there are some in which there appear to be no shadows at all. This is a combination of the shadows being diluted by multiple light sources. It’s also very easy to reproduce the effect. Simply visit the property, turn on the lights, and study the impact, effects and distortions and how they are represented on camera. In conclusion, it’s not necessary to prove that the shadows weren’t children, or whether they were alive, because no proof exists that the shadows were children, or that they weren’t dead. In effect, reasonable doubt exists as to what the shadows are either way, or to put it even more plainly: Reasonable Doubt Exists.
I hope this will be the last word on this nonsense, but if this case has proved anything, it’s that saner heads have not prevailed. Given the enormous numbers of views [and support] for the conspiracies [Armchair Detective’s “Shadow” videos have been viewed 200 000 times, far more than his other content], it’s clear that people prefer to believe what they want to believe, whatever titillates them, as opposed to thinking for themselves.
Before signing off on this area of analysis, there’s a final aspect to address in terms of the notion that the children were in the cabin of the truth with Watts, and Bella supposedly had her seat belt on. This is what the interior of Watts work truck looks like – the front seat.
In a scenario where they’re “taking Mommy to the hospital”, one’s cognitive bias sketches the family sitting together in the front, or at least Mommy is in the front where Daddy can keep an eye on her. But there’s virtually no room for anyone, especially not on the floor of the front passenger seat.
Then there’s the issue of car seats. If the children were alive and going to hospital, or anywhere else and their safety was a concern, where are the car seats?
If Watts didn’t intend to go to the well site with the children, and sort of made it up as he went along [it wasn’t premeditated] then why did he put three people [dead or alive] in his work truck, and go to the effort to back up his truck, rather than go in the Lexus which had the car seats? Had Watts ever driven with his entire family to a work site [or anywhere else] before this date?
Why would Watts need to make several trips back to load living people if at least one of his children was running out to him?
And why would he need extra tough garbage bags?
Why were two garbage bags found on the well site? “You took them out like garbage” is exactly right.
One of the impressions and cognitive bias I’ve tried to emphasize over the course of six book covers, is no matter how the text, colors or distracting mosaics surrounding the central character of Watts changes or distort, the central image – of a TWO FACE – remains.
This central pillar premise is thus a lot like two light sources shining on an object, throwing up different, deception shadows. The message of the TWO FACE series is this: We are fools if we look to the trick of the shadows for answers, rather than the man responsible for throwing them. Look to the man to find out why, when, how and why.
The TWO FACE 6-part series is available exclusively on Amazon Kindle at this link.
For those who know this site TCRS is allergic to conspiracy theories including this one. The source is apparently someone related to the Rzuceks. Although I trust the source who passed it on I’m not sure the information is reliable by any means.
The information you’re about to read has virtually zero grounding in evidence or in the discovery. So why am I posting it here? Because it suggests there may be a little or a lot we don’t know that could change everything. Please note my posting it here isn’t an endorsement of this theory. Personally I think it’s interesting but probably false in its entirety.
Here goes. Nichol Kessinger gave birth to a baby boy 15 days ago [February 18th]. Chris Watts is not the father of Niko, but another man named Chris [also married, and a Thrive promoter]. In spite of this supposed encounter, Shan’ann assumed the child was her husband’s and not the other Chris’s. The Rzuceks have [allegedly] made a deal with Watts for him to be moved to a different prison in exchange for a full confession. Watts’ motive had to do with the double bind in dealing with not one but two pregnancies. It’s also been ventured that Watts is prepared to talk if he can be granted visitation to his son.
Although anything is possible, it beggars belief to imagine Kessinger was pregnant [about 12-13 weeks] at the time she was interrogated, and either didn’t know it, or did know and didn’t show it – especially emotionally. One would have expected her to be completely emotionally compromised and struggling to get a hold of herself.
The other aspect, as mentioned, is none of the above conjecture appears to have any foundation in the discovery, including in the recovered texts. An absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean something didn’t happen. On March 7, we’ll find out – for sure. Well, hopefully.
Today, Valentine’s Day 2019, is six months and a day – give or take – since the Watts Family Murders back in mid-August. Having kept up with all the coverage of the case [in the media and on social media] it’s been illuminating, and quite alarming, to see how the media narrative has fallen away precipitously and been taken over – hijacked in a sense – by armchair detectives.
There’s nothing wrong with cogent analysis in true crime. There’s also nothing wrong with a sincere effort to get to the truth even if one fails dismally. The fact that one cares about crime and fixing the fabric of society to begin with is a redeeming quality, I feel.
There is something seriously wrong with purposefully peddling conspiracies to make a buck. If there’s something cynical about that, what’s really frightening is just how popular these sites and posts can become.
We criticize at times the manner in which Shan’ann and Chris Watts didn’t seem to know the difference between reality and fantasy. Shan’ann in terms of their financial situation, and the reality of the affair Watts was having behind her back, and Watts in terms of committing the crime in the first place and imagining he could get away with it.
We question what was he thinking, and perhaps in terms of Shan’ann’s MLM – what was she thinking. But we ought to turn these questions back to ourselves, and we do when we look at how we are talking and thinking and addressing this case. The conspiracies don’t reflect well on us at all. If the Watts couple had elements of delusional thinking, so do we. If the Watts’ couple thought they could beat the system [him in terms of duping the law, her in terms of beating the MLM odds] then the conspiracy peddlers are no better. I can sell fake news better than I can trying to package reality – that’s the concession, and it’s a cowardly one.
One way to spot the opportunistic peddlers is by observing how each week they come up with a new conspiracy. It started with Watts having an accomplice [his father, wearing white shoes]. Then shadows became a child running around the crime scene [but still invisible]. Then Nichol Kessinger was on the scene. Then there were two children. Then Watts intended to blow up the CERVI 319 site. Then Kessinger was pregnant. Have I left anything out?
Another way to spot the conspiracy peddlers, the worst offenders, is when their content gets taken down. Does it get taken down once or habitually?
A few have also criticized me for occasionally posting “silly” content on CrimeRocket, as a cynical attempt to keep the ball rolling. Silly is a matter of opinion. The ongoing coverage on CrimeRocket is actually a sideline to the narratives that are still being written. Once that process is complete the coverage of this case is likely to become intermittent and then likely cease altogether [sorry].
A lot of the content posted here isn’t just banging a drum, wanting to be heard for the sake of it, it’s functional – the content here is linked to the narrative so that the books aren’t burdened with excessive description, explanations and background. Sometimes key concepts [like interiority, intertextuality and agency] are introduced here so that readers will be somewhat familiar with them when they come across them in the narratives.
The idea is that CrimeRocket provides a sort of stepping stone between prospective readers and the narratives. It’s a chance for you to get to know me, and for me to get to know you. For those who don’t read any of the books, you might find yourselves feeling a little lost on occasion, not knowing why certain ideas are adopted and others rejected. You might feel a little behind the curve. [If so, get reading, but make sure you read the books in the correct order!] And while readers who’ve gobbled up the series anxiously wait for the next installment, they can – by hook or by crook – keep up with the basic flow of research right here and even, theoretically, inform where it goes.
CrimeRocket, in keeping with the narratives, has a very strict policy on conspiracies. We avoid them, mostly, we don’t entertain them when they are brought up and we only repeat them to defeat or debunk them.
“Book 4 in the K9 series is a must read for those who enjoy well researched and detailed crime narratives. The author does a remarkable job of bringing to life the cold dark horror that is Chris Watts throughout the narrative but especially on the morning in the aftermath of the murders. Chris’s actions are connected by Nick van der Leek’s eloquent use of a timeline to reveal a motive.”