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.”
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.”―
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.”―