In TWO FACE ANNIHILATION, I analyzed and interrogated the notion of “Bella’s Last Words”. That was the headline act of the Second Confession, and the headline Dr. Phil ran with.
Serious incongruity in the semantics [Bella’s Last Words] – why didn’t the FBI, CBI or the media pick up on this inconsistency?
Intertextuality versus circular reasoning – he’s using the video to prove the children were still alive, and the video supposedly corroborates what he says. And he brings it up as supporting evidence. Interestingly, the agent, when questioned on this admits, “It’s hard to see.” But reading between the lines he doesn’t sound convinced. And just like the First Confession, Coder gets this Confession by leading Watts through it.
How does True Crime Rocket Science interpret the data – what happens when we interrogate the cloud of semantics, given the extensive case file, and given what we know about the Silver Fox?
There is a psychological mirror in Nut Gate. So when Watts sounds emotional about Bella saying:
“Is the same thing going to happen to me as Ceecee?” This is something Bella repeatedly said, but not at the well site, and not about smothering. About dying in her sleep because of an allergic reaction. Remember, they were sickly children, and Shan’ann’s meltdown over Nut Gate didn’t happen over a single day – it was still stewing during Bella’s birthday, it was still boiling over when Watts was in North Carolina and he wanted to go see his parents. And most crucial of all, we know from the babysitter – McKenna – that as late August 11th, the last day and night of her life, Bella expressed her concern about Ceecee. She said she was worried if she went to sleep, when she woke up Ceecee might not wake up. And this concern for Ceecee naturally affected Bella herself.
“Is the same thing going to happen to me as Ceecee?”
Could the same thing happen to me as Ceecee?
There’s also the criminal psychology aspect. Just as the disposal of the children’s bodies was duplicated, one little body in one tank, another in another tank, it’s also very likely the way they were killed was the same. And it’s for this reason that the irony rings in Watts’ mind, of his own child asking…
“Is the same thing going to happen to me as Ceecee?”
Because in a premeditated scenario, when Bella asked these words, Watts – in his mind – knew what he was going to do, and he knew the answer was yes. And it’s for this reason, when Coder asked him what he answered when Bella asked what’s going to happen to me, Watts claims he can’t remember. But notice the words he uses.
“I don’t remember…if I said yes, like a horrible person…”
Because it would take an especially horrible person to say that in his mind, meanwhile pretending that everything was going to be okay, when it wasn’t.
And hence the scenario he sketches of taking the kids, alive, to the well site, is the same sly scheming as the premeditated murder itself. It’s subtly allowing people to believe what they want to believe, meanwhile in the background the Silver Fox is smiling a cunning smile in his heart of hearts. You may say he’s a bad liar, but he’s fooled the media and he’s fooled most of the armchair detectives who consider themselves experts on what really happened.
In the next episode I’ll be dealing with first my response to the original Dr. Phil show dealing with Bella’s Last Words, as well as what I stated then, in early March, was the original theory of True Crime Rocket Science. This analysis is explicated in rigorous detail in the 7th book in the TWO FACE series – ANNIHILATION.
The Daily Mailhas released a preview clip of Monday’s Dr. Phil, part two in the show dealing with the Watts Family Murders. Part of the factual findings of the show [not the show’s strength it has to be said] is a medical report proving Chris Watts was the father of the unborn child. Not that that was ever in dispute, but in a case as fluid as this one, where reality seems to shift almost on a whim, it’s good to get certainty. Brick by brick we’re building a solid scenario for this case.
Curiously, what the victims are going through seems to be a parallel universe to Chris Watts’ experience in jail. The Rzuceks are also finding comfort in God, and according to Sandi, she has feelings of hopelessness that sound troublingly close to suicidal thoughts. That’s exactly what Watts has been saying about how he’s handling things as well.
Of course going onto Dr. Phil and telling the nation is the worst way to deal with grief, or to get closure, if that’s the goal.
While the Rzuceks deserve every support and sympathy, and probably will benefit financially from this interview – and significantly – it is not the purview of true crime to hand the fates or the souls of criminals [or their victims] to God. In common with the law, law enforcement and the justice system as a whole, it is also not the business of true crime to be sentimental about criminal matters relating to life and death, though a no-nonsense approach shouldn’t be confused with a lack of compassion or humanity in the face of genuine human tragedies and catastrophes.
It takes a thief to catch a thief, and so in true crime, we can’t catch the operant criminal psychology without trying to outfox the fox. We have to temporarily adopt the merciless mindset of the fox to catch the fox, if that makes sense.
In fact the point of true crime is to show how our humanity [or the criminal lack of it] to humanity actually plays out, and by doing so as honestly, completely and as thoroughly as we dare, perhaps we can improve our sense of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and our ability to adapt to and change for the better. Or as Thomas Hardy once put it:
If the way to the better there be,
it exacts a full look at the worst.
Perhaps by taking an unfettered view at the worst in ourselves, we can find a way to being better, to some kind of affirmative journey to authentic self-actualization.
Not to be indelicate, but it is the purview of populist tabloids and tabloid media to ingratiate and indulge in the touchy-feely aspect of crimes. This does virtually nothing to actually move our understanding forward, and despite appearances to the contrary, Watts’ Second Confession hasn’t provided truth or closure in terms of where, when or how the murders were committed. It is possible the way he killed his children is truthful, or partly truthful in terms of how, even if the where and when is not true.
With that being said, it’s probably timely to address TCRS’s position in terms of the “new information” of the Second Confession, as well the District Attorney’s recent statement that most of Watts said is credible and reliable. Has it changed?
The position of TCRS also remains that the children were sedated, overdosed or poisoned and that there was no “please Daddy” or any other kind of talking – or crying – in the home, just as there was no talking or intimacy with Shan’ann prior to her murder.
Admittedly, there is no chemical or autopsy evidence to prove the contention of sedation, besides the fact that the basement had containers – floor to ceiling – filled with powerful sedative medication, and that Shan’ann and her husband both worked in jobs on a daily basis that had to do with chemicals, arguably toxic in both cases.
We also have the tiniest thread indicating Watts searched Oxycodone 80mg and subsequently deleted this search, so we can’t be sure when he searched. What we can be sure of is that Oxycodone can also be used as a murder weapon, and far more effectively than a blanket because it is a silent and “soft” kill.
OxyContin [another name for Oxycodone] kills 200 Americans daily, so to use it as a murder weapon would make sense, especially if its already in the home.
If there is negligible forensic evidence to prove the TCRS theory, then neither is there evidence [fibers or otherwise] to prove Watts’ contention of in situ random, impulsive smothering at CERVI 319. The blanket as imputed murder weapon for both children has also disappeared so it’s impossible to verify Watts’ claims. And that’s the point – there is no evidence to confirm his scenario so we have to make up our own minds what makes sense and how it lines up with his introverted, cowardly, sly, two face and face saving personality. One thing we know with certainty is Watts Googled Oxycodone prior to the murders. We don’t whether whether he Googled “smothering”. So which has more objective proof behind it?
….harrowing details emerged this week for the first time since Watts was taken into custody.
‘It’s worse than we ever thought. We thought we’d heard the worst already, we had no idea it was worse than this,’ Shanann’s brother Frankie said. Her mother cried at points in the interview and said the only thing keeping her alive was her faith.
‘Those were my grandchildren. I loved them. They were mine. I cry all the time. ‘There’s many times that I just feel like giving up. If it wasn’t for God I wouldn’t be here,’ she said.
Frank, Shanann’s father, recounted the disturbing details of the murders to Dr. Phil who replied: ‘I am so, so sorry.’
In the clip below, Dr. Phil describes the girls sitting in the truck with their feet on their mother’s body.
Interestingly, although Dr. Phil kicks off Part One of his two-parter on Chris Watts “on location” in Pinehurst, North Carolina, where the actual boardroom spiel takes place sounds like it was in Denver [with the family’s law firm].
Listen to the rest…
As someone on TCRS recently commented, does Watts not care now what Kessinger thinks about him cheating on her now [which I for one don’t believe], or does he care, and he said it to settle a personal score?
This guy’s mind is sounding like a bag full of cats at this point.
According to Thomas Grant, one of the four lawyers sitting in on the Dr. Phil exclusive, Sandi Rzucek never heard Watts’ account firsthand, but it was relayed to her by law enforcement. She then relayed it to her lawyers.
According to CBS: …lawyers say Shan’ann was the only one who died in the house. Lambert said Watts killed his wife in their bedroom, after she threatened to take his children away because he wanted a divorce. “In that fight he confessed to having an affair,” Lambert told Dr. Phil. After Shanann was strangled, Lambert said Bella Watts walked in the room, to find her father wrapping Shanann’s body in a blanket.
One thing that gives a certain amount of credibility to the idea of Shan’ann being the only one killed in the house is the minimal cadaver traces picked up by the dogs. So from that perspective, there is not necessarily confirmation but some reinforcement for this story. In my view, however, the Trinastich video footage doesn’t indicate that the children weren’t killed in the house, but the opposite. It tends to suggest they were.
Interestingly, according to the lawyers Watts hasn’t been offered any incentive to confess, but has done so because he is remorseful and has found God. Obviously if this statement isn’t true, it casts doubt on whether the remorse or newfound religion is true.
It’s also difficult to believe no incentive was offered. What does Watts have to gain by putting it all on him, when he felt determined to murder his wife, bury her and lie about it especially over the course of those first three days.
Now he wants to protect her and protect her reputation? Out of the goodness of his heart? It may be that he does want to protect someone – Kessinger. And that this version while taking the blame off Shan’ann, also takes it off his mistress. Tomorrow we will have a clearer picture.
There’s a saying by English journalist Rudyard Kipling, author of Jungle Book, that goes:
“If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs…you’ll be a man, my son.”
Right now a lot of people are losing their heads [some are losing their minds too] on the Chris Watts case. After three months of virtual silence in the media, with the exception of the DA breaking its silence to have no comment on Kessinger’s first search for Shan’ann Watts in 2017 [December 10] and HLN’srecent publication of the doorbell footage [February 20], this “Second Confession” in March is the third major story.
It should be noted that our first peek at this story, and that’s all it really is – a glimpse – comes not from the Rzuceks [who are not terribly articulate] but through their lawyer Steven Lambert.
And it should also be noted that this isn’t a firsthand account, it’s either a second-hand account [meaning, Lambert was potentially in the room], or more likely a third or fourth hand account [via law enforcement, via the Rzuceks and then via Lambert].
We should also note that the media coverage at the moment is intended to sell a particular slot on a particular talk show. It plays like the teaser to a movie. In other words, it’s not exactly True Crime Rocket Science, it’s the tabloid shit that swills around cases like this.
The three screengrabs below are taken from a story published by the Daily Mailon March 5th. I’ve referred to the same story on the title page with some additional fact correction. It will be far more useful to deal with the police reports and analyze the audio, and that will likely be done exhaustively in a narrative [the audio is apparently 5 hours long].
But since we have what we have, let’s see what we can work with, and hopefully for those reading this who are also going to watch the show this evening, you guys can come back with a cogent sense of fact versus fiction still intact. Without further ado let’s unpack the coverage thus far. 1. A Fourth-hand Account
Steven Lambert, apparently, will appear on the show, the Rzuceks family lawyer. A lot of what is going on right now is the lawyer trying to win a civil claim for damages on behalf of the victim’s family, or in common language “get as much money as he can for his clients [not forgetting himself]”. I remember very early on the media reporting that they were lodging a civil claim to prevent Watts from making money from the murders, for example through writing a book or selling his story. Well, that means the Rzuceks have virtually the exclusive rights to do that [make money telling and selling the story].
This strategy came to fruition recently as published on Inside Edition on February 19th.
The public should ask Dr. Phil how much he paid for this story, and evaluate the payment with the merits of what’s being peddled as “true” crime. Whatever your answer, that will give you some idea of the honesty and integrity of all the folks involved.
Now, back to the fourth-hand account. Let’s drill into the import of these claims:
It started with Shanann threatening to keep their children from him after she learned of his affair, and ended with the mom and both daughters dead.
Bella reportedly spent her final moments begging her father to spare her life.
So if I understand English, the basic scenario here is a family argument? The family argument starts with Shan’ann threatening her husband, presumably to get him back after he confessed to her about the affair. But that’s not how it happened [just in the strict terms of this statement]. It started as Watts telling his wife of the affair, and then Shan’ann threatening to keep their children from them. And then [again this is outside the chronology of the way the paragraph is written] Bella begs for her life and then we’re left in suspense. Did he kill her right there?
So to simplify, this is the claim:
Watts confessed [to an affair].
Shan’ann threatened [to fight custody].
Bella begged [for her life].
Essentially these are three conversations or communications that end in a violence, brutal [to use the word in the article] triple murder. And yet no one hears a sound. When Watts tells his wife about the affair, does he whisper and Shan’ann whispers back? When Shan’ann threatens him, does she whisper? When Bella sees her mother dead, dying or murdered, does she beg for her life quietly?
We’ve also got an interesting flipping around of Watts’ original scenario. Remember how he came up stairs and caught Shan’ann strangling/smothering Ceecee? Now it’s Bella coming into the room and catching him doing it.
I don’t want to go into it into too much detail right here, but even the first contention is fucking preposterous. So…Chris Watts told Shan’ann he was having an affair? He just told her? Because that’s the kind of guy he is right? He’s a truth teller. Why would he tell her this at 02:00 or 04:00 in the morning when she’d had little or no sleep? Shan’ann didn’t want to wake him up and talk to him that night, although there was a lot she needed to talk about. And of the two, who was the more confrontational and talkative? So the idea that Watts told his wife the truth, and that’s what set the cat between the pigeons is patently ridiculous. But if you don’t know the people in this story you might think it makes perfect sense. 2. Not one fight, not one argument but two…
So here we already have an adaptation of the first scenario, except it’s a double conversation. Fuck me, we’re running out of time! So was the first fight, making up and getting on really well in the first ten to fifteen minutes after Shan’ann arrived home? And that was also a quiet fight in which the children weren’t roused and the neighbors didn’t hear anything. What was that fight about?
Later on [an hour later, two hours later?] they get into a second fight and this time Watts confesses to the affair. At the same time he says he wants a divorce. Shan’ann tells him [I guess this is the “threatening”], “Well, you’re not going to see the kids again.” Like that, that’s how she says it. In other words, the conflagration that ends in triple murder starts off with Shan’ann calmly saying the word “well”. She says it.
Lambert then emphasizes that it was because of this “conversation” [he uses the word conversation] Watts strangles Shan’ann to death. That’s strange because they’d been texting for weeks about not being compatible and and possibly getting a divorce, and to him and to her friends Shan’ann didn’t mince words. Shan’ann wasn’t once to mince words. It was “fuck him” and “fuck that” but in spite of it, she was fighting to keep the marriage, and why wouldn’t she, she was pregnant. She couldn’t afford to raise the kids by herself, and he couldn’t afford to move out and live on his own either [and he knew it].
There are more sparks between Watts and his wife in their texts than in this silent night climax that leads to violent death. There are more sparks in a meltdown over nuts, than in an affair, divorce and murder.
3. Bella walked in and asked…
We also get a silent re-examination of Bella’s last words. Now she’s not begging, now she simply asks [presumably in a soft voice that can barely be heard]: “What are you doing to Mommy?”
In the dozens upon dozens of videos, there are some where we can hear the children shouting. Bella was distressed about her sister not waking up, and probably missed her mother that night in particular, seeing as though they’d bonded over two weeks. And so in this scenario, she “asks” her father a question?
A real scenario involving a child witnessing the murder of their mother would sound like this:
It’s classic that the Rzuceks decided to accept the plea deal out of mercy for Watts, and to spare themselves the discomfort and the spectacle of a trial, and then three months later, here they are celebrating and endorsing and passing on [essentially] this disclosure worth millions to the highest paying media about how their daughter and grand daughters were murdered. This is closure? Financial closure sure.
Ironically that was Watts’ motive too when he wanted to move on with his life.
There is something particularly troubling and psychopathic [not I word I often use] about this easy peasy, loosey goosey spinning of straw [dead bodies] into tabloid gold. If it was genuine justice, a true confession and actual contrition that would be one thing, but it isn’t. And look how many people are in on this ruse. The family. The lawyers. The media. We are all unthinking, unfeeling, unconscious monsters.
Watch this show, by all means. Listen. Maybe we’ll learn something meaningful, but don’t believe everything you hear.
I will do analysis of course but it’s the position of TCRS that both children were killed several hours before Shan’ann’s arrived and that neither were smothered. It’s also the position of TCRS that Shan’ann was murdered in a surprise attack before she went upstairs.
One aspect to consider when you’re hearing this nonsense is the most obvious question of all. If Shan’ann and Bella were murdered simultaneously, or soon after one another, why did no one hear anyone screaming in the dead of night between 01:48 and 04:00?
I’m also interested in the semantics Dr. Phil is going with; specifically in the use of the word “admission” here. Why not confession? An “admission” is a concession, a claim, an expression, but it’s not quite as strong as a confession [a formal statement admitting that one is guilty of a crime].
More analysis to come.
Why did Chris Watts do what he did? Simple – because he’s a narcissistic psychopath. Strange though, that following Dr. Phil the Weld County District Attorney didn’t hold a press conference letting America know the mysterious motive has been solved – and on national television:
CHRIS WATTS IS A NARCISSISTIC PSYCHOPATH
The news media, at least, took this breakthrough and ran with it, publishing locally, nationally and internationally the answer to the question that has hung like a cloud over this case, ever since it broke into the mainstream…
Why did Watts murder his pregnant wife and two daughters? Because…
CHRIS WATTS IS A NARCISSISTIC PSYCHOPATH
Mystery solved! Case closed!
Now let’s find out if you’re one too by taking this Narcissistic Personality Quiz. Be sure to leave your score in the comments section, so that society knows who to be aware of in future.
When you’re done, take this test to find out if you’re a psychopath. Once again, please be sure to post your score in the comments, as it’s in society’s best interest to know how psychopathic you are. In the interests of full disclosure, and the greater good, I scored a 5.
Full disclosure, I scored pretty high on the narcissist quiz, a 19. Celebrities often score close to 18. Narcissists score over 20. Having said that, I scored low on two potentially harmful indicators, “exploitativeness” and “vanity”. On the other hand, my “entitlement” score is quite high, which clearly can’t be good.
I understand the official take on authority, but I’m not sure it’s as relevant to an author. Author–ity is a kind of intellectual power, the recognition that one is a valuable, insightful, intelligent thought leader or an expert in a particular field. I’m not sure whether an author aspiring to that is narcissism or a career necessity…
On another measure there’s definitely less ambiguity. On this site, and in my narratives, I am definitely guilty of entitlement. I do expect favorable treatment and am not happy when there is criticism instead of compliance. I often feel the criticism is undue, uninformed or unwarranted. I’m not sure whether this reflects entitlement in other areas, but I will have to think about and try to be aware of that going forward.
Still looking for a Narcissistic Psychopath Test, and a definition on what that means…
The “N” word has become one of the most popular words in true crime today. It’s taken over from psychopath, in that regard, as a sort of of catch-all catchphrase label which basically explains who the criminal is and why he committed the crime.
Except it doesn’t.
In reality, our social media-infused society is more narcissistic, conceited and vain than ever – we as consumers are so self-absorbed in our own customized color-coded wants and desires for convenience we’re more narcissistic than ever – so to point the finger at a criminal and blame his narcissism for the crime is not only hypocrisy of the last resort, it’s blindingly disingenuous on our part.
IS THERE A PSYCHOPATH IN YOUR SOUP?
In the same way that the word psychopath was sticky and popular for a while, because a lot of the traits of psychopathy do translate directly into criminality [heartlessness, lack of empathy and pathological lying], narcissism also has a feel-good stickiness to it. Both terms are sticky because they resonate to some degree. It is invariably somewhat true that a crime is going to be, and appear to be, cruel, heartless and selfish. But the fact is, many people in ordinary society are selfish and cruel. Many others are high-functioning psychopaths and pathological liars – certain professions attract these psychopathic personalities: chefs, lawyers, CEO’s, salespeople, television reporters, surgeons, cops, journalists and members of the clergy.
So to call a criminal a psychopath is really to associate a criminal with a vast swathe of society. You’re not really narrowing it down by using the term, instead by using a cliche, you’re invoking a stereotype, and probably incorrectly.
Narcissism is similar. To brand a despicable criminal a narcissist feels pretty gratifying, doesn’t it? The word has a powerful zing to it, like atheist or pedophile. A narcissist is characterized by extreme selfishness, he craves admiration, he has a grandiose or exaggerated view of his own abilities, and his self-centeredness may be so extreme that he struggles to differentiate himself from external objects [say, a large house, trophy wife or mistress, bank balance or pot of gold].
And like the psychopath, an extreme narcissist is a pathological liar. Thus, the real criminal character-trait we want to look out for is habituallying.
And so, this is where the “N” word breaks down in the Chris Watts case. If you’re going to accuse Watts of being grandiose, never wrong, wanting to be the center of attention, addicted to something [or someone], arrogant, lacking in sympathy, controlling and/or manipulative, two-faced etc, to be fair you’ve got to apply those traits to Shan’ann as well.I know, I know, that’s victim blaming. But I’m not going to let those attached to the “N” word wriggle out of it that easily.
Blame Chris Watts all you like for being a narcissist, apply those traits to Shan’ann – or don’t – but before you’re done, apply them to yourself as well. That’s the real litmus test.
If we’re being honest, if the Narcissistic label describes Watts best then it also describes plenty of us too, and many people we know, doesn’t it? I’m not at all sure, for the majority of Watts’ life prior to the crime, whether he can be genuinely associated with grandiosity, arrogance, provoking others, putting others down, blaming others, or wanting to be the center of attention.
Some aspects do ring true, like his being potentially irresponsible with money, as well as with his wife’s pregnancy, and with the lives of his loved ones. But how many among us are loyal to a fault, have never cheated, and have solid bank balances right now?
How are your finances? How often do you lie? How do you [or I] respond to criticism?
None of this is intended to defend or justify Watts, it’s an effort to make the case for the applicability and appropriateness of the “N” word. I hope that much is clear. By now it should be obvious that the Narcissism label is about as apt as the Psychopath label, which is to say not apt at all. It’s a generalization. If we want to explain who Watts is, and why he did what he did, narcissism isn’t the diagnosis.
WHO ARE THE TRUE NARCISSISTS IN TRUE CRIME?
The poster boy for a narcissistic murderer is Oscar Pistorius. There is a huge amount of arrogance, conceit, self-centeredness etc, and much of it is based on massive attention and adulation in the face of massive inadequacy and insecurity. OJ Simpson is arguably also a classic case of a narcissistic criminal. Both these men are – or were – celebrities. That’s the level or dose of narcissism we’re talking about when it’s relevant to true crime, and guess what – our own narcissism and voyeurism played directly into the hero worship that created these celebrity personas.
In reality, every psychologically healthy human being is a narcissist. We all have to maintain a healthy level of narcissism. It’s a minimum level of self-love we have that causes us to take care of things like personal hygiene, and basic socially acceptable behavior.
When a sibling sees another get a slightly bigger piece of cake, or a few more drops of soda, or a slightly more expensive toy come Christmas, they go crazy, demanding equal treatment. This is actually healthy narcissism; it protects them from being trampled on and taken advantage of. It reminds the parents not to favor the one over the other, or there will be hell to pay, and there should be when there is unfair favoritism.
So when it comes to true crime, who decides how much narcissism is excessive, and when it plays into criminal psychology when we’re all narcissists to some extent, and we’re a more narcissistic [selfish, vain, materialistic] society than we have ever been!
Who’s going to do it? Who’s going to decide this or that criminal is too narcissistic. Relative to who, or what?
IDENTITY IS THE KEY TO THE AUTHENTIC NATURE OF CRIMINALS
In order to fathom who a criminal is or why they do what they do, we have to do the much harder job of figuring out who they are. We have to get to know them. We have to construct a narrative. We have to find out about their history, life story, love life, backstory, family, friends, enemies, personality, attachments, failures – all of it. That takes time and effort. It’s through their identities that we figure out the who and why. It’s through spending a lot of time deciphering their language, behavior, body language, semantics, preferences, likes and dislikes etc. that we start getting into their heads. We listen to their music, examine their tastes [in clothes, food, sex], all of this tells us far more about a person than the “N” word.
If you’re a true crime fanatic and you’ve been banding the “N” word around a lot lately, please stop doing it. If everyone calls every murderer a narcissist, all we’re doing is agreeing that we have no fucking clue who or what we are dealing with. The “N” word, as far as I’m concerned, is almost as bad as the “he just snapped” explanation.
“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.”