True Crime Analysis, Breakthroughs, Insights & Discussions Hosted by Bestselling Author Nick van der Leek

Tag: motive

Experts: “This Was Chris Watts Motive For Killing His Entire Family…”

Do you agree?

The expert waffles on here a little about separation, and the psychology of separation. Do you think that’s why Watts committed the crime? Because of a psychology of separation?

As so often happens in true crime documentaries, the title of the documentary is about how the motive is revealed for the first time. Then, when you watch the documentary, it’s all about how nobody knows why, nobody can say why, and it’s all still a mystery. Which means the producers have duped you.

What do you think of a domestic violence expert commenting on the Chris Watts case?

Analysis coming soon on TCRS Patreon.

“She had a leash on me; she tugged me away…”

Pages 4 and 5 of the CBI Report deal briefly with Watts’ version of his relationship with with Kessinger:

He stayed at Kessinger’s house almost every night his wife and daughters were in North Carolina. He felt like he didn’t have time at home to think about his marriage when Shan’ann and the girls were out of state. He went home after work to work out, eat dinner, and then would go over to Kessinger’s house. He slept over at Kessinger’s house almost the entire month of July. Being away from home allowed him to not think about being a father and husband because he wasn’t surrounded by reminders of his family. “It feels like a roller coaster ride that I just kept punching a ticket on and never could get off.”

if Watts spent an entire month sleeping at Kessinger, wouldn’t his GPS have alerted the office in Platteville that Watts was at another location? Wouldn’t he have been asked about it?

Page 554 in the Discovery Documents alludes to this:

Fullscreen capture 20190411 134430

Kessinger wanted to have sex all the time. He never had to worry about saying something stupid around Kessinger and never had to plan what he was going to say when he was with her (Kessinger). He told Kessinger that it felt like she had a leash on him and she was able to tug him away from Shan’ann.

If Watts had been staying with Kessinger solidly for a month, then naturally when Shan’ann arrived back, that scenario would no longer be the case, would it? How could Watts continue to sleep with Kessinger once Shan’ann was home?

Unless he moved out. No wonder Kessinger was actively helping Watts with this part.

Wasn’t this the pressure Watts felt because of her impending return? That his mistress expected to have access to him after Shan’ann’s return, because their divorce was finalized, along with the sale of their home…? Because that’s what he’d told her and now it was important to make reality fit the lie…

Fullscreen capture 20181212 163343

Is she the key to unlocking Van Gogh's mysterious life – and death?

In the final two months of Vincent van Gogh’s life, he mentions one particular woman’s name in separate letters to his brother Theo, and to his mother Anna and sister Willemien. All the letters are sent from Auvers-sur-Oise, a small hamlet on the banks of the river Oise, and the town where Van Gogh died on 29 July, 1890.

The first mention is this one from Vincent to Theo, post on 24 June, 1890, a Tuesday and just one month and one week prior to his death:
I hope to do Miss Gachet’s portrait next week, and perhaps I’ll also have a country girl to pose too.
Four days later on June 28 June – a Saturday –  having not heard back from his brother, Vincent writes him another letter, this time writing at length about “Miss Gachet”:
Yesterday and the day before yesterday I painted Miss Gachet’s portrait, which you’ll see soon, I hope. The dress is pink. The wall in the background green with orange spots, the carpet red with green spots, the piano dark violet. It’s 1 metre high and 50 wide. It’s a figure I enjoyed painting – but it’s difficult.
Despite Van Gogh’s stated “enjoyment” of the painting, he admits to having some “difficulty”, but doesn’t say whether this is due to the reticence or reluctance of his 20-year subject, or for other reasons.

Whatever the issues, Van Gogh assures his brother he will “have another go” at painting the young woman’s portrait. Her father – Dr. Gachet – has given the artist his permission.
He’s promised to get her to pose for me another time with a little organ. I’ll do one for you – I noticed that this canvas looks very good with another horizontal one of wheatfields, thus – one canvas being vertical and pink, the other pale green and green-yellow, complementing the pink.
And then Van Gogh – still in the same letter – waxes lyrical about the female form, the colors of dresses and the romance between “art and nature”:
But we’re still a long way from people understanding the curious relationships that exist between one piece of nature and another, which however explain and bring each other out. But a few, though, do feel it, and that’s already something. And then this has been gained, that in women’s clothes one sees very pretty arrangements of bright colours. If only one could have the individuals one sees pass by to do their portraits, it would be as pretty as any past era, and I even think that often in nature there is currently all the grace of Puvis’s painting, between art and nature.
When Theo responds to Vincent two days later, in a letter sent from Paris [less than an hour by train to Auvers] on 30 June,1890, he alludes to their new baby falling ill, thus preventing the family from coming to see him in the country. Theo flatters his brother, saying of a portrait he hasn’t yet seen:
Your portrait of Miss Gachet must be admirable, and I’ll be pleased to see it, oh those little patches of orange in the background…
Skipping back to 5 June, Vincent in a letter to his mother Anna, makes an allusion to the young Gachet girl as well, along with a medical diagnosis of his brother’s failing health [Theo would be dead within six months of Vincent’s death]:
The doctor here has been very kind to me; I can go to his home as often as I like, and he’s very well informed about what’s going on among painters these days. He’s very nervous himself; most probably that hasn’t improved since his wife’s death. He has two children, a girl of 19 and a boy of 16. He tells me that in my case working is still the best way to keep on top of it.  Well, in the last fortnight or 3 weeks that I was in St-Rémy I worked from early in the morning until the evening without stopping. And only stayed in Paris for a few days, and got started again straightaway here.
Theo was waiting for me at the station, and my first impression was that he looked paler than when I left. But talking to him and seeing how he was at home, I was encouraged — although he was coughing — but it really is true that he has not got worse during that time. So even if it were to remain the same, I would almost dare believe that this might already be counted as something gained. And next year he’ll get stronger rather than weaker. It’s a matter of patience, his constitution and the circumstances of his life…
This sounds like a son trying to assure his mother not to worry, or interfere, and more specifically trying to reassure his mother that her eldest son is working hard and paying his way, even if he doesn’t have a real job and isn’t earning any money.
On the same day, 5 June, Vincent writes to his sister Willemien:
For me the journey and the rest up to now have gone well, and coming back to the north distracts me a lot. Then I’ve found in Dr Gachet a ready-made friend and something like a new brother would be – so much do we resemble each other physically, and morally too. He’s very nervous and very bizarre himself, and has rendered much friendship and many services to the artists of the new school, as much as was in his power. I did his portrait the other day and am also going to paint that of his daughter, who is 19. He lost his wife a few years ago, which has greatly contributed to breaking him. We were friends, so to speak, immediately, and I’ll go and spend one or two days a week at his house working in his garden, of which I’ve already painted two studies, one with plants from the south, aloes, cypresses, marigolds,5 the other with white roses, vines and a figure.
“The figure” in the garden, of course, was young Marguerite Gachet.

And so one rather has the impression of the lonely artist welcomed into the Gachet home after a traumatic year in the unfriendly confines of the nuthouse in St. Remy, and in these cozy, safe, pleasant surroundings he comes across a shy, unmarried young woman surrounded by the vivid curtains and colors of the French summer – in full bloom.
Since her mother is deceased, and her father is a busy doctor, one can rather imagine the 30-something painter regularly brushing shoulders with the much younger Marguerite, as he goes about his painterly ways.

But what did her father, Dr Gachet, make of Vincent’s interest in his daughter? To paint, of course.

Some, such as the author Derek Fell have speculated that in the painting Marguerite Gachet in the Garden, Marguerite is dressed in white, “like a bride.” The garden is filled with white roses and light lemon marigolds. Fell speculates on rumors swilling in Auvers at the time that Van Gogh considered Marguerite a friend and that she desired a relationship with him.
Fell goes on to state in his book Van Gogh’s Women:
Dr. Gachet, though, had not given permission for the sittings and when he learned of the two sittings in two consecutive nights he was quite apprehensive about any relationship they might share. Dr. Gachet asked Van Gogh to end his relationship with 21-year-old Marguerite…
On 22 July, after an unusual silence from Vincent, Theo writes a letter to his brother suggesting he go to Dr. Gachet.
…I hope, my dear Vincent, that your health is good, and as you said that you’re writing with difficulty and don’t speak to me about your work, I’m a little afraid that there’s something that’s bothering you or that isn’t going right. In that case, do go and see Dr Gachet, he’ll perhaps give you something that will buck you up again. Give me news of you as soon as possible.

On 14 July, in one of his last letters, Vincent writes another short letter to his mother:
But precisely for one’s health, as you say — it’s very necessary to work in the garden and to see the flowers growing.
For my part, I’m wholly absorbed in the vast expanse of wheatfields against the hills, large as a sea, delicate yellow, delicate pale green, delicate purple of a ploughed and weeded piece of land, regularly speckled with the green of flowering potato plants, all under a sky with delicate blue, white, pink, violet tones.
I’m wholly in a mood of almost too much calm, in a mood to paint that.
He sounds like he may be in love with those delicate colors and white, pink, violet tones after all, doesn’t he?

More: The Sad Story Of Vincent Van Gogh And His Lovers – dailyartmagazine

Time to do undo some of the media mindfuckery around the Watts Trial

It’s time for a Jerry Maguire moment. Around the Watts case I mean. Are you ready for it? Are we all wearing our friends hats, because unless we’ve got our friends hats on, how can we speak plainly to each other about this? And when we speak plainly it stings. So get ready for some stinging.

On HLN recently the reporter described the incredible detail of the 13 minute submission by the District Attorney. Detailed? Really? Then she regurgitated the District Attorney’s bogus motive verbatim as if it was gospel, and then had an expert psychotherapist mindfuck the idea into the brains of the mainstream.

I don’t know what Robi Ludwig meant when she said the problem with divorce is that it can be “timely”, but what I do know is if Watts’ motive was that all he wanted was a fresh start with his new girlfriend – if that was the sum total of it – then why would he decline to just say that?

If the District Attorney was going to say it on his behalf, and that’s what it was, why not just say it? Why not tell the cops, or his parents? “Mom, dad, I don’t know what I was thinking. Shucks, I just wanted a fresh start, you know.”

The actual answer is because – for reasons of lock-in, because Watts was an introvert, and because of very particular scenarios and dynamics inside the marriage that had to do with status, her work, his earning capacity and more that we won’t go into here – Watts felt murder was the easier option.

He was in a bind he couldn’t get out of.

We stand on the other side of the rainbow and judge him, but no matter what we think, he thought – being in his marriage – murder was going to be the easier way to get out of it than actually trying to leave and divorce. He said he wanted to leave. For whatever reason he was having trouble leaving. A lot of trouble.

Uh…has that ever happened in a marriage? Where one spouse is like…I dunno…sort of…trapped? Where the other refuses to divorce no matter what?

One oh-so-obvious symptom of a potential lock-in factor was the pregnancy.  Having a pregnant wife while having an affair is a de facto scenario for being torn in two.  Where the pregnant spouse [and unborn child] are both murdered, doesn’t that seem like a very clear expression from the husband that neither the wife nor the child are wanted. Instead their unwanted. But the mistress is wanted, in fact, very much so. He can think of little else. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

When Shan’ann hollered on social media that he was so excited and that it was all his idea was it true?Fullscreen capture 20181030 123441

Fullscreen capture 20181030 101241Fullscreen capture 20181030 101040

Or was this an attempt to lock-him in and chase his mistress away? Don’t sniff at the possibility. Maybe it was a possibility and maybe it wasn’t, but if it WAS a possibility, can you imagine Chris Watts being pretty pissed off with the state of affairs. Especially if he’d communicated with her that he wanted out, while she was twisting his arm in public assuring everyone he really, really, really wanted in.


If the first thing he did after committing the murders was call a realtor to put the house he couldn’t afford to pay on the market, why would he be delirious and crying with joy at the prospect of having a third baby and another small mountain of bills and obligations?

Why, during his Sermon on the Porch, would he look clean-shaven, relieved, almost happy at the prospect that he’d cast his “burdens” from his shoulders, in fact, made them “vanish” to use his word. Not a single tear about the baby he wanted so much that morning, and in court, only a single a single tear when it was all over. That tear seemed more about the grief he’d caused his own parents, than the pain he inflicted as one.

maxresdefault (1)

Moreover, Cindy Watts said in an interview that he wasn’t excited about the child. Did she make that up? Why would she? Surely it would paint a better portrait of her son to say he was excited and proud to be a dad again if that was the case.

But it wasn’t. And he tried to go along with it until he felt he simply couldn’t. She wouldn’t let him and so something eventually snapped in his mind.

Fullscreen capture 20181122 023711

If the motive to murder is 100% accurate, that Watts simply wanted a fresh start with his new girlfriend, then America better watch out. It means any time anyone wants a fresh start they’re going to commit murder, double murder, triple murder, whatever it takes to taste that free air again. Apparently “wanting a fresh start” is now considered a real motive by law enforcement and court room professionals these days. Who knew?

Chris Watts has been sentenced, it’s all over and justice is served – but does the DA’s motive wash?

It was most important to hear from “the evil monster” today, and yet the monster – true to his mostly introverted form, chose to remain silent. On his behalf, the District Attorney has described Watts’ motive as simply “a desire for a fresh start, to begin a new relationship with a new love”. But there’s a problem with that. Tens of millions of married couples have exactly the same motive when they choose to get out of their marriages. They separate and divorce with no harm done, no foul.

Fullscreen capture 20181120 002418

So was Chris Watts too lazy to get a divorce? Was he too dumb to get a divorce? We know that prior to the murders he’d communicated to his own parents and to Shan’ann’s parents that they intended to separate, and incidentally, he communicated the same thing to his mistress, Nichol Kessinger.

One of the big questions that still remain is when did he express the desire to leave his wife for the first time? Was it before his wife became pregnant or shortly after? We know from Kessinger that their affair apparently began in mid-June, exactly when Shan’ann announced her third pregnancy. Was the third pregnancy an Oops we did it again! – or something else?

At 23:41 in the above conference, a reporter asks the District Attorney a question about why. He’s answer is slightly different to the one given in court. Let’s look at the transcript:

REPORTER: I know you don’t know why exactly [Rourke nods, sniffs, purses his lips] but can you talk about what the motive…was…or the reason for it [Rourke abruptly looks down]. Or the reason for a seemingly normal father to-to do something so horrible?

ROURKE [Gazes down, purses his lips]: Like I said this morning [gazing into the middle distance, Ren is in picture, glancing up at him]…I think that…based upon his…um…Google searches, his cell phone searches, some of things he was doing while Shan’ann and the girls were in North Carolina, I think it became pretty obvious that…he found a new love interest. And for whatever reason in his mind [blinks], divorce wasn’t an option. Um…I can’t speak as to why [shakes head] anyone…would take the…take the steps that he did…but during the course of our investigation, other than the normal stressors of financial stress, that I think most of us have, um…the occasional marital stress, we couldn’t find anything else [shrugs] that was a significant enough motive [gazes up and to the right, glances back at reporter] to…annihilate your family [purses lips]…in the manner that he did [purses lips again]. 

In my opinion, Rourke either knows the real reason and isn’t telling [and that’s part of the plea deal], or he doesn’t know. Which is worse?

This is why Chris Watts thought he could get away with the annihilation of his family

Chris Watts thought he could get away with the annihilation of his family by crafting a story about just one thing.


At 06:35 in her interview with 9News, Cindy Watts is asked how she found out about “them being reported missing”.

CINDY [Touching her mouth with two fingers, pressing them against her lips]: I think Ronnie called me. Ronnie called me and said that they’re missing…and, I thought…[swings head] I don’t believe it. 

CINDY: I didn’t believe they were missing. I believe that she…was going to punish Chris. 

Notice Watts’ mother says this in the present tense.

I believe that she…was going to punish Chris. 

So the full psychological equation here, which isn’t elucidated very well right here by Cindy or the reporter, is that Cindy Watts knew over a period of time that her son was leaving Shan’ann, and so within that context, her taking off with the kids made sense to her. Because Shan’ann was a spiteful person, or she was often capable of being spiteful. Spiteful is an ugly, cutting word, so let’s consider it’s permutations:

maliciousmeannastycruelunkindunfriendlysnidehurtfulwoundingbarbed, bittervenomousvindictivevengefulvitriolicviciousspleneticmalignmalignant, hateful etc.

So one of those, is what Chris Watts was getting at.

But what was it?

Maybe, according to him, she was just being mean or unkind. Or was she being cruel, or malevolent, or vicious? Of course, whichever one you think Chris Watts is accusing Shan’ann of, is the word we must accuse him for this murders. Was he just unkind or hurtful, or was this barbed, bitter wounding from him the barbed, bitter wounding that would eclipse all barbed and bitter wounding that had gone before?

We must look at the Sermon on the Porch through his psychology, and when we do, we can see why it must have felt good for him to stand in front of his house, and for him to be afforded the chance to speak for Shan’ann for once.

Instead of her always speaking for him, always drowning him out, now he could do what she did to him, he could be her voice. It must have felt good to suggest things about her, knowing the truth was his preserve, and his only, and that through the media, he he had the power to craft any narrative about her.

Whatever he said became her reality, almost like an enchantment. What a turn-around after all the months of MLM madness, all that time of being being pushed, moved and prodded like a pawn through all those meaningless spiels. Well how about this spiel! This was him getting his comeuppance. And not without a little of his own spite peppering proceedings, but carefully hidden behind a friendly manner and an armor of folded arms.

At this point we’re not interested in finding out whether Shan’ann did or didn’t kill the children, what we’re after is the psychological portrait Watts was sketching of her.

What was it?

It was of a vindictive, reactive, spiteful person. He makes a move against her, he tells her he’s leaving her, and then BAM she reacts. She reacts mercilessly, like a scorned tyrant, on her own children. And to Cindy this makes absolute sense. Chris Watts had to have known it would make sense to his mother. It had to be important that the scenario felt right.

In Watts’ affidavit and in his Sermon on the Porch his original version was that he told Shan’ann he wanted to separate and she immediately went into reprisal-mode – punishing him by killing the children.

This scenario of going missing to punish him, his original scenario, also felt right to the Thayers.

In their interview with 9News they also though Shan’ann had taken the girls in a huff after some minor or major disagreement. They thought this because that’s what Chris Watts told them, but it also made sense. It sounded to them like something Shan’ann might do, didn’t it?

NICK: I mean [Amanda chokes up on his shoulder] we really thought [wipes his nose with his forearm]…Monday night when we kind of heard about all this going on [before the Sermon on the Porch] we kinda thought ‘we’ll see her tomorrow. We’re gonna be with the girls tomorrow.’ [Shakes head]. I guess…I haven’t even processed the idea…that our friendship with Chris is no longer.  

Again, Nick Thayer isn’t very specific about it here, but what he’s saying is he was also led to believe – directly, personally – by Chris Watts, that Shan’ann had just taken off with the kids. Maybe she was upset about something and she left so score a point.

Well, she would do that. She did do that, didn’t she?

A few days later they realized they’d been duped, betrayed, but they were duped because the lie fell on fertile soil. The scenario Watts was sketching made sense because they knew Shan’ann.

If we watch his Sermon on the Porch again, his demeanor is based on a scenario where him and Shan’ann had had a simple argument, he cares about her and the kids is how he’s presenting himself, but he’s no longer in a committed relationship, and she knows that, and that’s why she’s left.

Interestingly, he makes an “anonymous friend” the reason why she’s missing, a mirror on his own anonymous friend, and a mirror on his own knowledge about how and why this friend [potentially] is the “reason” they’ve gone missing.

In the first minute of that interview, when the reporter asks what happened – a wonderfully open-ended question – Watts sketches it as Shan’ann comes home [no big deal], he goes to work [no big deal] and then he gets a call from one her friends [is it a big deal?] and he returns from work, and he’s the last to know what’s going on [what’s the deal?]. Where’s Shan’ann? Where are the kids? He has no idea. Maybe she left. Maybe someone came and took them [according to an arrangement she made, and a subtle up-yours to him through that, leaving him in the lurch]. And if she doesn’t get back to him that’s fine [because stuff is going on between them], but if she’s not getting back to her people [he’s not her people], well that’s a concern.

All of that within the first minute. It’s a clever ruse except the part that he’s revealing is that it’s only important to worry about Shan’ann because everyone else is.

WATTS [Tongue flick, lowers head]: Uh, she came home from the airport, 2am, and I left around 5:15 [glances up] , she was still here [a lie, she was dead]…and…like…about 12:10…and that afternoon a friend Nickole showed up at the door [nods to the front door] , like I had texted Shan’ann a few times that day, called her, say, you know, but she never got back [slight asymmetric curling of the lip] to me. But she never got back to any of her people as well. And that’s what…really concerned a lot of people. Like, if she doesn’t, like if she doesn’t get back to me [shrugs] that’s fine, she gets busy during the day, but she diodn’t get back with her people which was very concerning. And Nickole called me when she was at the door [opens folded arm and motions to the door] and that’s when I came home. [Dogs barking in background]. And then walked in the house and [looks sidelong into the house] nothing [a slight smile and curl of the lip here too. He’s pleased with his handiwork]. Just vanished. Nothing was here. I mean she wasn’t-wasn’t here. The kids weren’t here. No-nobody was here.

In this version, Chris Watts is leading his audience into a scenario where he goes to work, is summoned home and his wife and kids are gone. Just vanished. He called her, she never got back to him or anyone else. He’s shifting the buck to her. He wants his mother and the Thayers and those close to him to think not what has he done, but what has Shan’ann gone and done?

When I first came to this case, I wondered why there is this extraordinary degree of sadism involved. There’s not just the killing of a woman, but a pregnant woman. Not just the killing of one daughter, but two. Not just the killing of these four flesh-and-blood beings but the unholy dumping of their bodies in oil and dust. There’s sadism – and shame – there too. The psychological mirror for sadism is humiliation. In some way, Chris Watts felt intensely humiliated over a long period of time. The narrative that so many are opposed to [understandably at this stage], that there was a spiteful aspect to Shan’ann’s personality, awakens the possibility that this was the root of his sadism.

It doesn’t make it right or reasonably, but it may go towards explaining why, not so?

And there’s an added reason why so little of the Sermon of the Porch made little sense, and stretched Chris Watts’ credibility to breaking point. There was one word he didn’t mention during the interview. This is a question for those who haven’t read any of the TWO FACE books. What word should have been the first word to use during the interview, and it’s a word he simply never mentions once. I’ll deal with that in a separate post, but you can start pondering on this so long.

What did the DA mean when he said he had “a partial motive” for the Watts murders?

Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke told reporters yesterday that he knows why Chris Watts did what he did – partially. He said he’d be happy to talk about what he believed [not what he knew, believed] post sentencing. What did he mean? And why is it so sensitive he couldn’t just say it there and then?

Fullscreen capture 20181107 171736-001

The area of the transcript [which I will post more on in due course] that deals with the why of the crime is provided below:

ROURKE: We believe we have a partial motive. I’m not sure if it’s the entirety of the motive, but I will be happy to comment on that following sentencing. Ask me again [on] … the day after, the day of sentencing. I will be happy to answer that question. At this point, that’s getting a little too far into the investigation at least as we sit right now.

In true crime, how often do we hear about “partial” motives? It’s part of the motive but not all? Not often, and especially not often from prosecutors. It’s prosecutors who have to confidently make it abundantly clear what happened and why.

No one has been on top of the Watts case as much as Rourke has [arguably with the exception of this site], but he has been able to have vital first-hand encounters, discussions etc. with the accused and he’s been able to review the actual evidence. He also knows what’s in those still sealed autopsy reports.

So what’s going on?

I’m speculating, and speculating on an area we know very little about, but Chris Watts’ sexuality [and suggestions about his bisexuality] seems to fit what Rourke is saying about partial motives and beliefs.

Being bisexual does partially explain wanting to not be married, wanting to not be a father and perhaps [but not necessarily] no longer wanting to have sex with his wife. In other words, half of the equation [but not entirely] is explained by the bisexuality.

Being bisexual is also about the beliefs one has of oneself as a person, and of the beliefs one has of society’s view of you. As noted in the TWO FACE narratives, male bisexuality is a particularly taboo orientation even in progressive society’s. Even homosexual men can’t stand bisexual men because of an impression that they’re loosey goosey and just can’t make up their minds. Bisexual women, by the same token, are considered by some to be highly sexualized and highly sexualized and so are prized – if that’s the term – by some. In any event, bisexual women don’t experience nearly the same discrimination.

So it stands to reason, if you’re a bisexual man who might want to keep it under wraps, especially in a masculine-type work environment like auto mechanics or the oil industry.

My own impression of Watts was that he was trying too hard to be a regular dude in his own family. He was playing constantly at being Mr. Nice Guy, but who he really was was eating him up.

A handy example of a bisexual criminal who murdered his wife and was convicted is Michael Peterson  from The Staircase documentary series.

If the bisexuality is what Rourke’s referring to, and if that’s only a partial explanation, where’s the rest? And with no prospect of a court case, will we ever find out? A lot of the answer to why resides in the first two narratives that are already out there. TWO FACE TWO POLLYANNAS will be out by the end of this week. It’s the purpose of this site and these narratives to plumb the entirety of the Watts story, and nothing short of that.

More on this topic:

Chris Watts: Bisexual or Not?

Chris Watts: The Psychology of Bisexuality

Were Bella and Celeste killed by their father or mother? What do the stats say?

On the one hand, the statistics are unanimous. Where infants are younger than a year [and fetuses are involved], the perpetrator is more likely to be the mother. These murders are a kind of grisly abortion-after-the-fact.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 095148

On the other hand, the statistics show fathers tend to come to fore in child murders where the children are older, and this trend has been getting worse.

According to Canadian statistics, over the last several decades the number of mothers involved in fillicide has dropped from just below 50% to less than 40%, whereas fathers have risen from above 50% to more than 60%.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 095425

But the Watts case isn’t infanticide, or fillicide, it’s the conventional murder of an adult [if there is such a thing] as well as fillicide and infanticide.

Does this suggest, on a purely statistical basis, that Mr. Watts is more likely to be involved in the murders than Mrs. Watts. I think it does.

Other statistics worth looking at:

Fullscreen capture 20181013 095729

When it comes to child murder, a history of family violence is an aggravating factor in 26% [less than 1/3rd] of cases.

In terms of the type of “weapon” used in child murder [in Canada], strangling is by far the most common method, followed by beatings, shootings and “other methods”.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 095612

Curiously, women only outnumber men in cases where strangling is the cause of death in the murder of children.

In other words, when murdering children, men prefer methods besides strangling.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 100036

In Table 2 below we see that in 66% [2/3] of strangling cases, the murderer is a woman. In almost 60% of smoke [or gas] inhalation, the murderer is a man.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 100509

What about motive? Interestingly, child murder as a result of frustration, anger and despair features more than four times as often as following a mere argument/quarrel, and about three times more often than as a result of revenge [which is the motive Chris Watts’ has mentioned in his allegation against Shan’ann].

Fullscreen capture 20181013 100228

Finally, the murder of children aged 1-4 is more common than any other age bracket, including infants below 1 year.

Fullscreen capture 20181013 103751