C.T. Brown’s 22nd Review

Mr Van der leek you should be ashamed of yourself. This entire book is a mixture of gossip, fake evidence and character assassinations. Do you even care that three people lost their lives (four if you include Shan’anns unborn child)? Can you imagine being the family of Shan’ann Watts and losing your daughter and grandchildren, only to have someone speculating that Shannon was unstable and difficult. Van der Leek takes a few videos and fb posts Shan’ann made and thinks that he somehow knows Shan’ann and her family. Victim blaming at its worst!!! Van der Leek seems to attach himself to cases such as this and even if there is little to no evidence, he creates wild stories from social media accounts and pictures. Shame on you Van der Leek!!!

Original review at this link.

 

Shan’ann & Chris = Mary Sue & Gary Stu?

Once we’ve gone beyond reflex responses – such as “he just snapped” – we must begin to deal with the characters in true crime as just that: characters. Is there more to them than meets the eye?

gary-stu-men-s-premium-t-shirt

What’s fascinating about the Watts case is how the characters of Shan’ann and Chris Watts seem to be perfect cardboard cutouts. It’s also why this case is so disturbing.

They’re too good to be true, which is why this case is such an indictment of the real world and how fake it is.

To be clear about what we’re talking about, let’s define it. These definitions are from various sources available online:

A Mary Sue is a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws, originally written as an idealized version of an author in fanfiction.

In Shan’ann’s case she’s the Facebook author of her online alter ego:

  1. Fictional
  2. Too perfect [and everything and everyone around her is too perfect AKA “Thrivin'”]
  3. She’s an idealized version of herself, by herself [in order to sell products]

A Mary Sue is an original character in fan fiction, usually but not always female, who for one reason or another is deemed undesirable by fan critics. A character may be judged Mary Sue if she is competent in too many areas wrg, is physically attractive, and/or is viewed as admirable by other sympathetic characters.

Science Fiction, interestingly enough, is an area where the Mary Sue moniker and criticism comes up repeatedly. I’ve written sci fi fantasy myself, and because the scenario is to create a world from scratch, and to populate it with fantastic characters blessed with unbelievable abilities, author’s tend to lose touch with reality. They also tend to write themselves into the story.

In Star Wars George Lucas did exactly that with Luke Skywalker as a glorified beginner car driver shooting around Modesto with a big hairy dog sitting beside him on the passenger seat – but translated onto the biggest possible canvas: he’s driving that car and hanging out with his hair animal because he’s saving the galaxy.

original

Facebook allows mere mortals on Earth to translate ourselves onto a much larger canvas too. Like actors and actresses, we also have our captive audiences, and if we say the right words and perform appropriately, fame and fortune [and Thrivin’] follow.

There was a time when the world needed a Gary Stu. The early 70’s was that time when the world sobered up. Simon & Garfunckle broke up, as did the Beatles. We’d gone to the moon and back, Vietnam had happened. It was time to pick up the pieces and start again. It was time to go back to our old farmboy values and from there, set out to rule the galaxy.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos [the world’s wealthiest man by a country mile] was a small child in the early 70’s. The Star Wars seed fell on fertile soil, but over the course of a generation, the world has changed. It’s gone from having Skywalker’s self-belief and determination, to self-belief and little else.

A “Mary Sue” (or “Gary Stu” for males) is a character who is overly perfect. … Often,Mary Sue represents the author’s idealized version of him- or herself projected into the world of the original fiction, also known as canon.

We may find ourselves becoming uncomfortable with these notions, and how they reflect on us, which is why it’s easier to look at it from a narrative and totemic perspective, via George Lucas’ dog.

If we’re not sure how cute, funny and ridiculous it is to artificially oneself, well, just look at what Lucas did to his hairy Alaskan malamute Indiana.

Lucasindiana

luke-and-chewbacca

Now it’s fine if we make up fairy tales and we’re allowed to believe in them too. It’s not fine when we begin to imagine that we’re actually fairy tale characters living in an actual fairy tale [an apt description for many Facebook profiles out there], or worse, try to convince others we are.

True crime is in itself a reality check on our limited perceptions. True crime tests our perceptions not just in how the crime manifests in reality, but to see through the perpetrator’s insistence on perpetuating a particular fairy tale version of his or herself. If we’re brave enough, we should also take this a step further: we should challenge our ability to recognize these deceptions in others in our world, and our circumstances [and hopefully ourselves too].

luke-and-rey

Society has grown up since the 70’s, but in some ways we’ve regressed. We see this in the schizophrenic acceptance and devotion to Star Wars‘ latest Mary Sue, as well as the rejection of her as too one-dimensional.

How have we regressed? Social media has made many of us into one-dimensional blow hards, with an emotional repertoire no more sophisticated than that of a reptile. We are nourished on daily doses of reinforcement – it’s either a plus or a minus. The reptilian parts of our brain respond to this like its crack cocaine, and some unfortunate souls become fatally addicted to the endless kick of LIKES and LOLS.

We’ve regressed because we’ve gone from being people, to one-dimensional zombies.

A similar battle is raging on social media for the rights to Shan’ann’s soul. There are those who see her exactly as she pretended to be, perhaps because Shan’ann’s most ardent fans want to be seen in the same way [as they pretend to be].

0_Chris-Watts-Shanann-Watts

And then there are others that think part of why this terrible happened had to do with faking it day in day out. Maybe there’s something about social media that’s not healthy, not only for the person projecting continuously, but the people around them. Their partners. Their children.

Maybe social media isn’t good for families?

Many engaged in this battle neglect to apply the same logic to the other spouse in this story, the guy who presented himself as Gary Stu. If there’s some debate about Shan’ann, there’s no doubt in our minds that Chris Watts pretended to be perfect but isn’t perfect. He’s a murderer, isn’t he? We miss such a vital insight by glossing over this area, because just as it was so fundamentally important to Shan’ann to push her fairy tale, it was also important to Chris Watts to keep his going.

That’s actually why this crime happened – for reasons I won’t go into right now – Chris Watts felt his fairy tale had been ruined. What was his fairy tale? Well, that’s the question isn’t it, and we’re not going to get it if we’re stuck on a bidding war for who’s better:  Mary Sue or Gary Stu?

Can we apply the same logic of caring about fairy tales to the victim, to her killer and to ourselves?

Our double standard in this department is exposed by the ease inwhich we can see how Lucas’s dog in Star Wars is excessively fantastic. We can see how Chewy is a silly but catchy projection.

We need to apply the same good-humored cool appraisal to characters in true crime – the criminal and the victim. Because true crime is invariably, inevitably, a story about us.

 

Shan’ann Watts tells her husband: “I don’t want a video of you…” while recording her children

Each of Shan’ann’s videos is a tiny piece of a puzzle, and yet seemingly as the pieces are assembled, the scale of the puzzle gets bigger and bigger.

In the video below Shan’ann tells Chris Watts “I don’t want a video of you…” Whether she says it in jest or with a wry sense of humor, her husband reacts the way most people would. He’s stung by it.

Is her attitude to him influenced by his wayward sexuality? Is her disdain justified or not justified? Is his?

“Ceecee’s been a crying mess for two weeks…”

Does been on social media excessively impact on the moods and sense of boundaries of young children?

We’ve spent some time analyzing whether Shan’ann was happy in her marriage, and whether Chris Watts was happy, but what about the children? Were the children being raised in a wholesome, caring, sensitive way, in a stable home with a stable mom and dad looking over them?

Was the way the children experienced discipline and freedom well-balanced?

There are plenty of videos showing Chris Watts interacting playfully with the children. Since Shan’ann’s either holding the camera or a product, we don’t see much of her natural interactions with the children.

Now let’s hear your observations…

“Chris Watts Just Snapped”

On an almost daily basis, those commenting on true crime use the phrase that the criminal [any criminal in a high-profile case] “just snapped”. It’s a doozy. And in just two words the case is solved from bottom to top, left to right and everywhere in-between. There’s no need to have an investigation or a trial or write a single word in a book about the case because the case has been solved. He “just snapped”.

The term is so permissive it was actually used as the title of a true crime documentary about Scott Peterson – SNAPPPED.

One of the reasons the “just snapped” idea is so popular is because so many criminals in court, or in their versions of events like to use it, their families like to use it and dumb journalists unthinkingly recycle it.

In the Oscar Pistorius trial he doesn’t use the word “snapped” but describes shooting his girlfriend to death [four times behind a locked door] as “an accident”, something that happened “before I knew it.”

Many people, including the Judge hearing the case, and many trial pundits and media folk, believed this story and as a result Oscar initially beat the murder charge against him. Fortunately, saner minds prevailed and the culpable homicide charge was eventually overturned to murder.

Jodi Arias also used the idea of herself drawing a blank when the crime happened. She wasn’t thinking when the murder happened, she went into a fog. And then, at a particular time when it was all over, the fog lifted. So something in Jodi, according to her, snapped too.

So with so many buying into the “snapped” scenario in the mainstream media, it’s not surprising that social media regurgitates the same thing.

Below are a few more handy examples:

  1. OJ Simpson

Fullscreen capture 20181004 052634

2. Chris Watts

Fullscreen capture 20181004 052326

3. Henri van Breda

Fullscreen capture 20181004 052501

4. Adam Lanza

Fullscreen capture 20181004 053112

5. Stephen Paddock

Fullscreen capture 20181004 053238

But isn’t “just snapped” the lazy man’s way of addressing a simple but difficult question? When there are no low hanging easy answers to why, then “just snapped” answers why, except “just snapped” is about as useful as “just because”.

It was while I was researching a book on mass murderers that this default non-explanation really came to the fore, and the more it did the more I made it my personal mission to figure it out and give it the proper true crime treatment.

As such I consider SLAUGHTER one of my best achievements in true crime to date.

What I discovered researching SLAUGHTER was that the more heinous the crime the more inexplicable it is. Apparently. So the more people someone kills, the less reason they have for killing – they’re monsters, and mad, end of story.

And so the poster child for a confounding motive is Stephen Paddock. His crime is so sadistic that no one – not the FBI, not the cops, not his family – no one was able to figure out why he did what he did. Even today that remains the case! Apparently he had no motive. And because we can’t figure out his motive, maybe he didn’t have one…And because he didn’t write a suicide note explaining his actions, apparently what we’re left with is an unsolvable riddle. Ergo “He snapped”.

Initially, Paddock was a tough nut to crack. But as I did more and more research on 7 other mass shooters, I was surprised by how clear the motive and the sadistic patterns were in each case. Just as serial killers can be profiled, so can mass shooters and school shooters.

The dirty little secret about school shootings is it’s very easy to see who the most likely candidate is going to be, but counter-intuitively, knowing that can actually precipitate the shooting.  How is that for a mind bender to the “just snapped” theory, that specifically in the high school setting one can actually set off a crime ahead of time by profiling your most likely shooter.

An incredible case study to understand why the “just snapped” notion is such ridiculous heresy is Adam Lanza. Thanks to the FBI there is a treasure trove of data which I dug into in detail in SLAUGHTER which reveals how chronically dysfunctional Lanza was as a person.

Since we’re dealing with Chris Watts here, I won’t go into detail to say how and why we know Lanza didn’t just snap, just that he’s a classic case where neighbors and the public  assumed that’s what happened, while a careful study of who he was, his habits, the dynamics with his mother and his digital breadcrumbs clearly showed months of meticulous planning.

Fullscreen capture 20181004 054742

And that’s really the essence of it. A clue to what we need to do to find out what really happened is in this screengrab just below the highlighted text. Paddock’s brother claimed Stephen paddock “was just a guy” and “just snapped”.

Fullscreen capture 20181004 053238

But the real insight here is what he says afterwards:

We know absolutely nothing about his motivations or situation before the shooting…

And so, if we are to move beyond kindergarten catch-alls in true crime, we have to know more than absolutely nothing about the criminals we’re talking about. We have to know more than absolutely nothing about their motivations about other things in their lives. We have to know more about their situation before they commit crimes. When we do, what we invariably find is that these crimes were accidents waiting to happen. These people didn’t just snap, the terror is that the way they were heading, a holocaust was inevitable.

Fullscreen capture 20181004 052535

And so I’d like to encourage the regular readers of this blog: Please try to refrain from using those words, it plays into the hands of the criminals without exception. They prosper thanks to our ignorance.

We begin on the path to authentic knowledge by admitting the most difficult thing, which is that we know absolutely nothing about these people, let alone their motives. Until we know more, we can’t begin to guess their motives.

In the Watts case we have two choices. Either he just snapped and Watts will be an enigma forever and ever, or he planned, plotted, calculated and even fantasized about murdering his family. If it’s the latter then by spending time finding out who he was, and who the Watts family were, who they were as people, what their personalities were like, their back stories and circumstances, only then we will find our way to the key that unlocks the reason for why what happened happened.

TWO FACE BENEATH THE OIL is available now on Amazon.com

Shan’ann Watts died Intestate – Is A Court Battle Looming in Probate Court over Life Insurance?

Weaving straw into gold. It sounds poetic, it’s even the stuff of fairy tales, but real human bodies can be converted to gold coins. It’s called Life Insurance. It should be called Death Insurance.

Fullscreen capture 20181003 215213

We saw the same battles over Laci Peterson’s inheritance, which was quite sizable, dragging on for years as a parallel to the criminal trial.

Fullscreen capture 20181003 213556

 

Chris Watts Case: What would Sherlock Holmes Do?

As a detective story, the Watts murder mystery isn’t very compelling. There’s a little intrigue about who did what, and given the current moratorium on releasing information to the press, people have become even more intrigued about what unknown unknowns may be out there, based on the known knowns [the surveillance video] and known unknowns [the children dumped into the tanks, but precisely where and how is uncertain].

For the world’s greatest detective, certainly in terms of evidence and investigative work, the Watts case looks set to be fairly open and shut. If Sherlock Holmes did walk the Earth today, it’s unlikely Weld County would call on him to consult – especially not about evidentiary aspects.

The second crime scene adds a complicated layer to the first, but the quick work of the cops means even the tissue evidence was still in a similar relatively fresh condition when their little bodies were recovered, compared to when the girls were dumped there just a few days earlier. Compared to the paper-thin cadaver evidence in the Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson cases, there’s going to be a whole lot more, an encyclopedia of tissue data, to go on in the Watts case.

There is some speculation, currently, that the delay over the release of the autopsy report is due to a lack of incriminating DNA evidence.

Is that so?

Although possible the lack of DNA theory seems unlikely, especially since 1) the remains as mentioned were recovered as quickly as they were, 2) the overall slapdash nature of the crime [shallow grave, cell phone found in the home, bed sheets stuffed in the kitchen trash etc] and let’s not forget 3) Watts’ shaky version of evidence as presented in his slippery-but-not-slick Sermon on the Porch.

The Science of Post Mortem Tick Tock 

Even if the DNA evidence is in doubt, the case could easily turn on something as elementary as whether the children died first. Has the coroner been able to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty how long before their mother’s death the children were killed? If the time of death difference is significant, the only logical inference is that Watts murdered all three victims.

Time of death is a science, but not an exact one, and even the prescient genius of Sherlock Holmes isn’t going to perform miracles in the area of clockwork.

We ought to caution ourselves on this matter of time, because in the same way if the murders may be demonstrated to have all occurred simultaneously [or cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they weren’t] , then the legal pendulum edges in Watts’ favor.

Fullscreen capture 20180905 142309

In the Scott Peterson trial, time of death was a huge issue on two fronts. The second involved the contention by the defense that the fetus had developed for several more days after Laci went missing, and thus Laci was supposed to have been murdered several days later. The enormous uncertainty around her precise time of death, as well as the fetus, meant this area above all gifted the defense case with significant reasonable doubt.

Proving time of death in the case of the Watts children will probably come down to an analysis of stomach contents. If food remains of the birthday party are evident, then time of death may be imputed to as early as Sunday afternoon. That’s early afternoon – before dinner. If there are barbecue-type morsels in the digestive track, if they were murdered after dinner, then it may be less simple to separate the murders of the children from that of their mother.

In hindsight we can already see how things are shaping up for the defendant in court: Chris Watts may rue the fact that the flight delayed Shan’ann by several hours, especially if the children were killed in a premeditative fashion in terms of Watts’ initial estimate of Shan’ann’s arrival [in the relatively early evening].

Did Chris Watts anticipate time of death would be so vital to his defense, or lack of? Chris Watts was counting on the bodies never being discovered, and thus rendering any autopsy [let alone autopsy evidence] moot.

“Mr. Holmes, we need you to pick this man’s brain…”

But what makes the Watts case interesting – even terrifying – isn’t the forensic side at all, it’s the psychology. Why did a picture-perfect dad destroy such a picture-perfect family?

In that question [and in the questions around who was “picture perfect” and how much], there’s the real mystery. When we plumb through Shan’ann’s enormous archive of posts, pictures and videos, the psychological mystery deepens. All is not as it seems.

This is the area where we might want Mr. Holmes to apply his mind. Why did this guy commit the murder [or murders]? Was it economics? What was the motivational mechanism exactly?

cumberbatch-holmesjpg

The worst criminals in true crime are also the most anal, and thus, the best detectives are also the most anal. Think about the likes of Dexter, Monk, Dr. Hannibal Lecter [when consulting for the FBI] and Mr Holmes himself. All sticklers for detail, all anal.

The anal aspect matters when it comes to forensics, but let’s face it, any idiot with a magnifying glass and tweezers can find and recover evidence if it’s there. Photography is there to record it. Technologies are there to decipher it. Great minds are no longer needed in the forensic side. They’re needed to decipher the criminal mind.

29178395_10155294619281935_8657499981552997243_n

Although popularly known as the world’s greatest detective, there’s actually someone better at the detective game than Sherlock Holmes, it’s his brother Mycroft.

This is Wikipedia’s description of Mycroft:

Possessing deductive powers exceeding even those of his younger brother, Mycroft is nevertheless incapable of performing detective work similar to that of Sherlock as he is unwilling to put in the physical effort necessary to bring cases to their conclusions. In “The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter” Sherlock Holmes says:

…he has no ambition and no energy. He will not even go out of his way to verify his own solutions, and would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove himself right. Again and again I have taken a problem to him, and have received an explanation which has afterwards proved to be the correct one. And yet he was absolutely incapable of working out the practical points…

Though Sherlock initially tells Watson that Mycroft audits books for some government departments, he later reveals that Mycroft’s true role is more substantial. While Conan Doyle’s stories leave unclear what Mycroft Holmes’ exact position is in the British government, Sherlock Holmes says that “Occasionally he is the British government […] the most indispensable man in the country.” He apparently serves as a sort of human computer, as stated in “The Bruce-Partington Plans“:

He has the tidiest and most orderly brain, with the greatest capacity for storing facts, of any man living. The same great powers which I have turned to the detection of crime he has used for this particular business. The conclusions of every department are passed to him, and he is the central exchange, the clearinghouse, which makes out the balance. All other men are specialists, but his specialism is omniscience. 

I like to bring up Mycroft when I hear criticism that one cannot possibly know anything about a case [because it’s too early or too late], how can you know if you weren’t there, and “how can you write a book about a case before the trial” etc.

Mycroft manages to be omniscient without setting a toe on a crime scene, and doesn’t seem to talk to many of the people involved directly either. So how does he do it? He does it by gathering evidence, reading newspapers, listening to the news, listening to what people say about people and what the criminal says for himself. He does what no one does – he looks armed with sufficient background information [sufficient in the sense that this knowledge opens all the doors and windows to deepest and most difficult sanctum in true crime: human nature].

The Craft of Pattern Recognition in True Crime

When we are masters of psychology, the variations in human nature are a snip. Quickly,  intimately and intuitively one can step into a new crime scene schema and see how the strings tie-in, and how the puppets got themselves tangled.

Over time overlaps re-occur, repeat and reinforce themselves, generating so many  mental maps. Each new iteration allows for ever quicker and more effective processing of people, patterns and predispositions. Once he’s developed the handy psychological profiles and patterns, this sharp tool of the mind allows him to recognize systemic data shapes that can be easily mapped, matched and oriented.

That’s a fancy way of saying, for example, that when you spend time in true crime, the semantics repeat themselves. Criminals on different continents tend to default to the same patterns when lying and covering up.  Deception, it turns out, is fairly uniform in how it plays in the real world. Criminality tends not to reveal creativity and enterprize in the criminal mind, but the opposite: laziness, entropy, weakness, path-of-least-resistance programming, impulsivity, lack of foresight, lack of compassion etc.

In this respect, something as simple as simple observation – penetrating observation – where you see through things rather than simply seeing what everyone else sees, can be  a mighty skill.

The work of a true crime writer [ahem] is similar, except that unlike Mycroft he uses an actual computer, and through this extraordinary modern tool he becomes capable of Mycroft’ s superhuman data collection, data mining and data assembly. But even with a computer doing all the processing, he still needs the imagination and the intelligence to tie all the pieces of string together. That can’t be taught. It can be learned, and the skill honed and that’s the difference between a true crime rookie and a true crime maestro.

So you see, it’s not so much about how big and powerful your true crime grey matter is, it’s what you can do with what you have in your head that counts.

8cd76b2705bf0ff3809de37e54220e22

The computer facilitates the same swift assembly of Mycroft’s mental palace. It does the rudimentary but colossal work of finding the right needles in the right haystacks. It collects these haystacks and needles and sorts them further into something that adds up to an orderly and untidied fabric. Finally, the structured mind must examine the fabric and see how haystracks and needles translate into trees, until trees become woods.  The woods then tear apart to reveal the castle. This is how a cogent narrative is conjured into being.

While the work of the lawyers, law enforcement, journalists, experts and pundits all matter, it’s only the true crime writer who synthesizes all of it, and if he truly has no horse in the race, then you’re probably going to get to the crux first, and best, via this  uniquely authentic omniscient narrative. Needles retrieved from haystacks need to build castles, not tee-pees of hay or worse, tee-pees of needles.

The narrative is the Holy Grail of true crime. It’s the story about what really happened, isn’t it? It’s such a simple question and yet how often is it adequately addressed, let alone answered.

What really happened?

In court, two narratives compete for jury votes, but the narrative in court is only the one that sells best based on the available evidence. It’s not what happened, but a distorted reflection at best. The distortion the jury likes best is voted on and becomes legal reality for the defendant. Think about the warped legal realities in the Casey Anthony, Oscar Pistorius and O.J. Simpson trials. Justice is an imperfect system, but with enough grease in the right gears, the wheels do turn and sometimes it can and does work.

A narrative needs to be more and do more than just turn a few gears. It has to do more than reflect a cool distillation of all the facts. A good example of a narrative that simply loads the reader with information is Perfect Murder Perfect Town. The book provides no insight into who killed JonBenet, other than to offer every conceivable tidbit about who it might be. That’s a cop out. It has to be better than that!

After gathering all the information, there has to be an intuitive flourish at the end – not necessarily demonstrable or even provable, but accurate all the same. This is why the thing that differentiates the exceptional true crime narrative from the trial narrative and the media narrative and the defendant’s narrative, is the ability to decisively answer not the forensic question, but the psychology.

Why?

1280px-Sherlock_Holmes_Museum_001

#Shakedown’s Call on the Chris Watts Case: The Bodies were “Processed”

The autopsy reports have been handed over to the court in Weld County today, and thus to the defense.

According to the Daily Mail:

The reports took almost two months to complete, with the girls and their mother believed to have been killed on August 12 or 13 by their father and husband.

What is in the report remains a secret however, and will be kept under seal at the request of the prosecution

The #Shakedown assessment of the autopsy reports is that they’re being withheld because of something unusual – and shocking – in them. For various reasons [listed below], it appears increasingly certain that some or all three bodies of the victims were processed before being dumped. Processed means a deliberate change made to the human tissues in order to convert from one form into another to facilitate decomposition and destruction.

Let’s begin with what we know:

  1. 3 of the 9 charges relate to “tampering with a deceased human body”.

    (1) A person commits tampering with a deceased human body if, believing that an official proceeding is pending, in progress, or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, the person willfully destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters a human body, part of a human body, or human remains with intent to impair its or their appearance or availability in the official proceedings.

  2. Although many of us assumed that simply placing the bodies of Shan’ann in a shallow grave, and Bella and Celeste in separate oil tanks constitutes tampering [concealing and removing in terms of the citation], I’m not sure that it does. Is the tampering limited to concealing?  I’m not sure that’s all that the tampering refers to.
  3. We also know that the autopsy evidence is being withheld from public scrutiny not by the defense but by the prosecution.

Now, a few inferences tying what we know to a few unknowns:

  1. Why are the autopsy reports being withheld. This is unusual. It suggests the issues with the autopsy deal pertinently with Chris Watts’ allegations that Shan’ann killed the children – meaning, the issues with the autopsy may at the very least be issues involving the processing of the children’s bodies.
  2. One reason why the prosecution may not wish to release such super-sensitive information to the public may be precisely because a jury would be contaminated if they knew [or were led to believe] something as shocking and grotesque as bodies of one’s own family members were being processed before disposal.
  3. The other reason fits in with #5; that the prosecution wants to limit the already scalding media spotlight that’s shining on Weld County.
  4. A further point to note is Chris Watts’ refusal – to date – to provide the prosecution with DNA samples. There can only be one reason for this. He’s already confessed to killing his wife. He wishes not to give the prosecution any reason, or piece of evidence, that might incriminate him in killing his children.

#Shakedown’s Gut Feel:Fullscreen capture 20181002 234949eel:

  1. On August 17th, when WDSU News reported on the case CBI director John Camper told reporters they were “quite certain” the body they recovered was “Shan’ann Watts’ body…” We could argue the semantics, but if Shan’ann was missing, and Chris Watts had directed them to the site using aerial photos, then who else could it be? And yet the CBI director hedges himself slightly. They’re “quite sure” it’s Shan’ann? Why couldn’t they be positive?
  2. #1 may feel neither here nor there, but there’s also the issue that the cops say they “believed they found the bodies” of the children. This also seems a tad uncertain and unspecific, but what really counts is the remark that the tanks were “mostly full”.
  3. On September 28th, #Shakedown analysed the CERVI 319 site and why the crime isn’t as straightforward as it seems.  If the analysis is correct, then the only way Bella and Celeste’s remains could have been dumped into “almost full oil tanks” is through the top hatch.
  4. It’s been the #Shakedown position all along that it would make no sense to take any unnecessary length of time in the disposal of remains, nor to risk setting off the onsite sensors by making radical changes to the refining process. This is especially true during the most risky and incriminating of moments in the commission of a crime – the disposal of the bodies. And thus, the contention that oil was released, the manway hatches laboriously opened [as contended by HLN‘s expert], the bodies dumped in empty tanks, the hatches sealed and the tanks refilled seems mistaken at best.
  5.  However the fact that the oil tanks were almost full according to “high ranking sources”, renders all these contentions moot. The manway hatches couldn’t have been opened, and the tanks couldn’t have been empty if less than 72 hours they were almost full. Why? Because the flow rate to fill these tanks is extremely tepid. These tanks take months to fill, not hours, days or even weeks.
  6. HLN captioned their coverage: SOURCE: OIL TANKS DRAINED TO GET KIDS’ BODIES. We know for a fact that it took several hours to locate and retrieve the children’s bodies from the tanks, which is further indication that they weren’t filled with a little oil at the time but were in indeed “mostly full”.
  7. This brings us back to the thief hatches. In order to fit the corpses of a 4-year-old and a 3-year-old through the 8-inch wide thief hatch, their bodies would have to be mutilated, destroyed in some way, and parts potentially removed. The only other alternative is that there’s a second hatch to the tanks that we’re not familiar with. But aerial footage doesn’t appear to show a second hatch, and neither does other coverage of similar installations.

#Shakedown’s Application of True Crime Intertextuality:

  1. The best evidence in this case for the idea of processing of bodies has nothing to do with this case, and everything to do with what we know in general where there are dead bodies of family victims. We know that parents often go to extreme lengths to remove all traces of a dead family member.
  2. In the Casey Anthony case her daughter’s remains were dry and entirely skeletonised when found. Because of this advanced state of decomposition and environmental destruction, prosecutors weren’t able to say for sure whether the little girl’s body was processed in any way, including through the use of drugs or chemicals [such as gasoline], except for the fact that she was duct taped. JonBenet Ramsey’s body was concealed via a ruse, a Ransom Note, but her mouth also covered in duct tape, an act unlikely to have been committed by her murderer. Patsy Ramsey’s clothing fibers were found on the inside of the duct tape. pp_travisalexandershower
  3. In the Jodi Arias case there was also a limited amount of “processing” of the scene and murder victim. Arias vacuumed before she left, and in her own version, moved Travis Alexander back to the shower and washed him, using a small plastic cup. She was trying to wash evidence of herself off him. Another more controversial reference case is the Madeleine McCann case, where no DNA evidence of Madeleine is said to have survived of the little girl whatsoever in Portugal. Even a hair had to be retrieved from her pillow at her home in England, such was the total destruction of her body. Cadaver odor was found, which means microscopic scent traces of her dying tissues weren’t destroyed.
  4. The best reference case for the Watts case is Scott Peterson. Although there’s no smoking gun evidence that Laci’s body was processed, we know Scott Peterson had a warehouse workshop filled floor to ceiling with chemicals, we know he bought chicken wire, we know a needle-nosed pliers was found [with Laci’s hair inside it], and so there’s strong reason to believe her body was processed: wrapped in chicken wire and a tarp, and that bleach was used to destroy evidence, especially on Peterson’s kitchen floor.  We also know there was a wet puddle right beside Peterson’s truck. I won’t deal with the same issues in the Amanda Knox case, not because they’re not relevant, but because so many believe Knox is innocent.
  5. We’re all familiar with the covering up of crime scenes, the getting rid of evidence [especially digital breadcrumbs], but when it comes to changing dead bodies, we hit a blank. There’s a good reason for this. Most of us, thankfully, have no experience with it. Just as Scott Peterson was in the business of chemicals used to convert shit into crops, Chris Watts was in the business of using chemicals to convert materials into fuel. If this was his job, it was likely also part of his persona, which makes it highly likely that he used chemicals to alter or destroy the remains of his wife and children.
  6. A final reason to suspect processing involves the hundreds of hair fragments found in the rear of Chris Watts’ truck.
  7. Last but not least., the fact that Chris Watts admits killing Shan’ann but not the children, suggests the condition of their bodies were very different to what happened to her remains. We know that that’s true based on their respective burial sites, but until now we weren’t sure just how true that was. Oil+Leak+Site