For the record, AD refers to Armchair detective and CC to Cherlyn Cadle. I abhor using acronyms in true crime as it dehumanizes all involved, and that’s the last thing true crime needs. It’s simply too long in this instance to have the full names in the title of a YouTube video – they actually have text limits to their titles.
In any event, TCRS – as you may have noticed – likes to focus on the merits of cases, not on individuals. It’s also why comments that are personal attacks and insults are so often deleted and often the commenters too.
In this instance the idea isn’t to go after Armchair Detective or Cadle, it’s to criticize their version of events. So if you agree or disagree, agree or disagree with the merits of the argument, not the creators/authors.
Very likely the response of these individuals to this post/video [assuming there is one] will be to frame this as a personal attack. It’s not. It’s an attack on merits. It’s an argument. It’s challenging the reliability of a particular version. So let’s see whether any response will be conducted in a similar vein, dealing with the merits, without resorting to issues of which country one is from, or how one supposedly treats disparagers dissenting on one’s own forum [which I believe has been raised somewhere].
The important part of putting these 22 Reasons together is that invariably one or the other of these bogus myths is fielded on a TCRS forum and one has to respond again and again and again and again to the same thing, over an over, making the same counterarguments ad nauseum. This quickly gets old. It’s tedious. If you’re asking a dumb question for the first time, bear in mind there has been a stampede of idiots before you asking the same damn thing. It’s tough to be nice, let alone polite on the nth iteration of the same thing.
Eventually the chaotic ecosystem seems to evolve into some kind of version. That’s where we are with the witches, broomsticks and pitchforks narrative. When enough people repeat that version, it seems to gain a kind of credibility, even authority. That’s an illusion, and an illusion of circular reasoning. And as a true crime author that cares about this case, it’s very disappointing to see.
Coming in 2020…
TCRS is acutely aware that, at least in terms of the Watts case, the majority rules. The majority has a particular view of the Watts case that TCRS doesn’t share and has never shared. This majority view is, or appears to be, endorsed by the mainstream media and also – in some fragments at least – even by Weld County.
TCRS is not influenced by populism or conspiracies, by this or that camp, by siding with the victim or the perpetrator or the mistress. TCRS simply makes an assessment based on where the evidence leads, whether that plays well to the audience or not. In order words, it’s an attempt at an authentic analysis, which sometimes has elements some people don’t like, or disapprove of. I think the Steven Avery books and those on Amanda Knox, Damien Echols and even the Everest tragedy are sufficient evidence of TCRS running foul of the majority/mainstream view.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).” ―
TCRS doesn’t wish to be the most popular source for true crime, just an informed choice for the more discerning true crime audience.
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― A Confession
I’ve been roundly criticized for being rude when people “disagree”. It’s not rudeness or arrogance. It’s irritation. Invariably these criticisms are fielded from a perspective of contempt, disrespect or an outright dismissing of the efforts TCRS has deployed its multiple books and blogs. Is none of this any worth? None whatsoever? It appears that way from the sneering tone of these questions. It’s annoying and it’s right to be irritated by stupidity. How often must one be exposed to the same rubbish before it becomes untenable, and then intolerable? How often must you listen to the same bullshit over and over again before you’ve had enough?
As it happens, there is a cure to dealing with a world where the majority is stupid. It’s an easy way to make friends, gain popularity and even happiness. Make yourself stupid.
“I don’t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.”
I’ve also been criticized for censoring or removing unfavorable comments. Well, I have the right to do that on forums I create. I also have the right to promote my work, and not to promote the uninformed insults and criticisms of critics. Think of it like who you allow to sit with you in your lounge at home, and what you allow them to say to you, before you throw them out. It’s like that.
Now, ordinarily, TCRS doesn’t like to address conspiracy theorists or those whose views are at odds with its own because this simply draws attention to them, and gives them a power they don’t deserve.
In fairness, both AD and CC [you know whom I’m referring to] have sizable audiences, and they’ve done a fine job at drawing attention to themselves as it is. This situation becomes relevant to TCRS where some of these people spill over and then field – verbatim – some of the asinine arguments from those forums on the TCRS forum.
It’s not done in a polite way, or in an informed way, it feels like people are simply transplanting what they heard somewhere else and dumping it on one’s lap, and saying:
So this post [and video] is hopefully the full and final explanation. It’s important to have it all in one place, because in fragments, they can seem quite compelling. Put all the irregular fragments together and what you have – and what you’re about to experience – is a total and utter mess that isn’t cohesive, doesn’t hold together, and doesn’t make any sense.
Okay, after that I think we have time for one more quote, and then let’s get down to business.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”― Marriage and Morals
22 Reasons why the AD/AC Version
is Rubbish Makes No Sense
- Was the crime premeditated? If Watts felt no remorse, why was there an emotional argument to kick things off to begin with?
- Sex. Watts had phone sex and then had sex with his wife because he wanted to see what that would be like.
- Shadows = children. “The two children were killed at the oil field” [exactly as Watts said]. Statement analysis reveals how Watts was “led down the garden path” not once but twice, and arguably three times. In each case he said what he thought people wanted to hear. And he was right – they did want to hear it, and it’s caught on.
- Involvement of others [classic conspiracy theory stuff].
- Demons. Yes, seriously. The argument that the supernatural must provide an explanation for what happened in this crime isn’t just a cop out, it’s an acknowledgement that one is completely defeated, not even going to try to figure out a crime. It’s the classic Deus Ex Machina. And what’s worse, it’s taking Watts’ own version at face value and running with it.
- Disposed of while alive. Why?
- Oil in stomach. Why does it matter that there is oil in stomach contents but not the lungs? Asphyxia from smothering is not the same as drowning. The reality is their bodies were entirely saturated in oil.‘The hardest thing was flying them here, because they were in crude oil for four days. So they were flammable. So we couldn’t cremate them,’ said Frank – Daily Mail
- Attempted smothering – twice. So where are the injuries? He also said they were bruised and tearful. Why weren’t they crying. Why weren’t they trying to wake up Mommy? Why wasn’t Rampage rampaging?
- “Watts slept before committing murder…” Criminal Psychology 101.
- “Watts was in bed when Shan’ann arrived.” Criminal Psychology 101.
- “Shan’ann changed herself – but left on her makeup. Also she didn’t shower after sex because being clean and tidy wasn’t part of her OCD. It was important to get the airport off her but not sex…
- “Watts cut off the blood flow to her neck…He Googled it…” So death was instantaneous? This is a better argument but it still doesn’t add up, nor is it supported by the evidence.
- “He knew she had died when she evacuated herself…” Doesn’t necessarily happen that quickly.
- Children were blue.
- Children running around the crime scene.
- An argument before the murder over custody, but no shouting or barking.
- Red [and other colors] vehicle involved. Images of red vehicles posted on CrimeRocket and in the discovery have innocent explanations.
- Chris Watts wanted to blow up the well site. He’s just that kinda guy right, loud, extravagant, over the top.
- “Chris Watts is a narcissist because this expert said so…” Richard Swatton: “He wasn’t clever in his deceptions…I don’t think he covered up very well.” Swatton, who is also a noted astrologer. Swatton does make a decent point at 1:57 when he says “Know thyself…” Don’t judge others, know yourself in order to know so-called warning signs in others. At 2:02 Swatton refers to the two sides [the two faces] of Watts, the real and the fake.
- Watts tried to poison Shan’ann with the Oxy on the night of the murder. [Also someone gave Watts the Oxy…]
- “When he watched the surveillance video he freaked out because he knew the children would be seen!” Why would he freak out about the girls being alive when he was on his way to work? That would/could/should have been an alibi.
- Shovel Man and Mary Magdalene.
“Fools are in the majority, and they never lack confidence because a fool believes that being in the majority is proof that one is right.”―
14 thoughts on “22 Reasons why the AD/CC Version Makes No Sense [UPDATED]”
Great post. some great points that other people should be asking.
It does seem that in order for Chris Watts to be relevant, every time he opens his mouth the events of what happened changes and just gets worse. is he trying to be relevant or loosing his marbles in prison ?
Then there are the other youtube ‘crime detectives’ running with way over the top theories.
Take Cheryln Cadle for example. I don’t doubt she wants to paint as honest a picture as possible but if she is fed crap information from Chris Watts. what would you expect her to print and believe ?
If a convicted family annihilator says it, it must be true right ?
Sorry, I have a cynical mind right now as I have been watching Mindhuner on Netflix and the Ed Kemper character portrayal is very close to the real disturbing Ed Kemper in his interviews.
I did try to make a long post but as per usual these days on this web site, my posts just disappear or never actually post. has anyone else had these problems ?
no idea why.
Great points you list Nick.
I do believe that Cheryln Cadle is trying to be honest but if she is fed duff information, what would you expected her to print ?
I do get the impression that Chris Watts stories just get more weird over time. Is he loosing his marbles or just trying to stay in the public eye ?
Other youtube detectives just seem to want more views. I don’t think they are bothered with proper investigative research.
I don’t think Chris is losing his marbles. I think he’s playing the long game in that he knows there’s no chance of getting out in 5/10/15 years. But 20/25 years – when history’s forgotten the horror and parole boards and judges are from a new generation who don’t remember it and see a sad domestic murder by someone not a threat to anyone else ? Maybe. And a bit of demon believing at this stage would play nicely into presenting a sudden and temporary mental health crisis as being the cause, along with pictures in cell demonstrating years of regret and the obligatory finding of god.
I find the Cadle saga odd. It was first presented as her acting on behalf of her church and being done to show how believers were there for sinners, powers of God’s redemption, bla, bla, bla, and to help promote their church. It has since seemed to have openly morphed into a nakedly exploitative and badly written attempt to cash in.
I’m trying to figure out the shadows thing. I didn’t know I could slow down the video – thanks for that tip. I was starting and stopping it, and that didn’t help. But what I see, after umpteen million views, is that at 12:43 a shadow appears to be moving toward Watts. That is what was troubling. It’s moving before you see Watts. But that’s an illusion. I tried doing what you said to do, and instead I focused on Watts instead of the shadow. He’s hidden by the cab of the truck but it’s almost simultaneous that he moves toward the shadow instead of the shadow preceding his movements. Since the cab is hiding him you can’t see that it’s simultaneous. He’s the one casting the shadow. And now, could be my imagination, but it looks as though he might be carrying something or that something is in front of his body before he moves down, before he bends over. Could he be carrying a container in front of him? All of the other times when he’s moving from the garage to the truck his shadow is in front and slightly left of him. But at 12:43 he’s moving from the cab toward the garage. I think that is why the shadow is ahead of him and looks like it’s moving from the garage to him. Because he is moving forward. Also logically, why would he leave one last child to the end and would she have been strong enough to push open the door from the garage on her own since it also closes if someone doesn’t hold it open. I think he held the door for Det. Baumhover when he entered through that garage/house door. I believe all three were dead before he loaded up his truck. No one left of their own power but Watts.
I have chosen to reply on here as I am too embarrassed to leave it on the youtube site. I think I am probably guilty of being on of those people who has asked questions before reading your books or viewing all your content and then found you have covered it before. Apologies for that. I just wondered who the other family were next to the Watts in the similar family photos side by side. I thought it was Patrick Frayzee as although I am familiar with the name and bare rudiments of the case I have not seen any videos or crime shows about it yet so dont know it very well but intend to. However on google it doesnt look like him or his wife, and there only seems to be one child featured a baby. I feel I should know but I dont.
Very interesting video and I like the way you clarified you were disagreeing with the arguments and not the individuals and I agree with the content. I advertised your site on a British Crime Channel I follow so hopefully it generated more subscribers for you.
I just wondered who the other family were next to the Watts in the similar family photos side by side.>>>It’s actors from the Lifetime movie on Chris Watts coming on January 25th.
Ok so sorry I feel foolish now and thought this would happen. I am sure I read that Bella was upset her hair didnt grow and that she was embarrassed about it that she was not like her other school friends, her hair is always short and brown in all the photos. Before I read that I was surprised that Sha’nann wanted it like that considering how glam she was in all other respects, so I discounted that theory as the child has long blond hair totally unlike Bella. I was always aware there would be a movie and one was being talked about but didnt realise it was nearly out. I will use the excuse that here in the UK the case is not very well known unless you follow true crime. None of my friends and family have heard of it. It would have featured no doubt in the newspapers at some point but not as front page news or anything like the extent it is in the States. As I do have an interest in true crime and was aware of it I should have realised. Thank you
Just a little more damage limitation I thought it might be Patrick Frayzee as you mentioned him when the photo came up. Silly me. Thanks again for all your hard work and insightful content its much appreciated.
This comment has brought up something I haven’t felt comfortable mentioning, mainly due to ugly comments directed at murdered children that I’ve seen on some other sites that I don’t want to be associated with, but the fact is, Bella’s hair worries me a bit. She seems in some photos to be suffering from hair loss and maybe also a bit of hacking to her hair. Now some illnesses – such as immune disorders – can cause hair loss, but this would be more likely in an adult after years of non diagnoses or not very good control of the illness. Lupus, that shannan says she had, is an auto immune disorder of this type. The hacked look – I really don’t know. Certainly kids can get a pair of scissors and do a bit of diy hairdressing. But it seems to be present at different ages. And gran was a hairdresser which you’d think would guarantee reasonable haircuts. I don’t want to go on about it too much, because one possibility is quite ugly, hence my being wary of raising it. But it does concern me and is one of the reasons it would be interesting to see things such as health records, day care records and similar.
Her health is a factor I believe, but not the area of health you seem to be implying. I’m not sure why every case involving murdered children always gravitates to that, but it’s particularly sickening in the Ramsey and McCann cases because the parents themselves push that narrative. And the mainstream love it. It’s not true, but it’s a lie that in the Ramsey case was meant to be a decoy for sexual contact which there was evidence of.
I’ll be clear about what I’m raising – as otherwise I may be causing misunderstanding. The hair loss I’m suggesting can be associated with emotional/mental distress and things like nutritional deficiencies. I’m saying it can be a manifestation of neglect and emotional distress in children. The uneven/hacked looking hair – sadly, this is not an unknown manifestation of abuse, to brutally cut hair as a punishment. To be clear – I am not jumping to either conclusion. However I find some of the family videos emotionally unhealthy in terms of empathy for the children.
can be associated with emotional/mental distress>>>I believe it is. This was a distressed family. Each and every member of the family was distressed, primarily because of the gaping maw of chronic household debt.
It makes me wonder whether there is anything in the rumours about child protection services being aware of the family. In the UK – if that was the case – a Serious Case Review or Child Safeguarding Practice Review would legally have to be conducted independently and published, though with names redacted. This would be in addition to any legal proceedings such as prosecutions etc. The review would look at all aspects of what contact had been had with what services – health, police etc – and at what had happened. It’s purpose is to improve future prevention of such a thing happening. I often wonder if USA has an equivalent process.
The family on the right are the actors who played the Watts family on a Netflix doco