Saturday, December 21, 2024

LOATHING NICHOL KESSINGER by DREW B.


This outstanding article by guest writer Drew B. was originally posted on another blog in December 2019, where it generated thousands of views and abundant feedback. It even prompted the interest of podcast Team Phoenix, where an abridged version of the article was read aloud by host Chris W., with a follow-up live episode in which author Drew B. made an appearance to discuss the Chris Watts case. As the article offers a critical perspective of Nichol Kessinger's connection to the Watts crime, True Crime, True Life™ blog is proud to feature such a resource to the study of this case. 

1.) "Loathing Nichol Kessinger....Watts Maligned Mistress" Team Phoenix episode: 
2.) "Interview with Tania Hagan, Author of 'No Inclination' inspired by the Chris Watts case" Team Phoenix live episode (Drew B. appears beginning at 53:55):


"Loathing Nichol" 

Part 1.

By Drew B.


"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue."

--Erich Fromm: Man For Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics.


"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."

--Francois de La Rochefoucauld


"Show me there's a reason for your wanting me to die, You're far to keen and where and how, but not so hot on why."

--Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice: Gethsemane


While somewhat late to a detailed study of this case, I have recently spent some time attempting to better understand the tragic and somewhat incomprehensible classification of murder known as familicide. Familicide occurs when a perpetrator (the majority of which are men) murders multiple family members. Familicide is generally premeditated and often concludes when the perpetrator commits suicide. Today, familicide is better understood but there is still a great deal about these rare cases that leave researchers with two questions for every answer. There is no doubt that these cases are as complicated as they are destructive. 


In the early morning hours of August 13, 2018, Christopher Watts committed familicide when he murdered his wife Sha'nann (34) and fifteen weeks pregnant, and daughters Bella (4) and Celeste (3). Later that morning he disposed of their bodies at his petroleum industry field worksite. Missed almost immediately by close friends and business associates due to Sha'nann's ever-present social media activity, as well as a missed appointment with a physician, Watts initially claimed that Sha'nann and his daughters were out on a play date with friends.


From his first contact with law enforcement (who were called to conduct a welfare check at the Wattses Frederick, CO home) his peculiar and dispassionate behavior made him an immediate suspect. That Sha'nann left behind her vehicle (with car seats) her purse, cell phone, medications etc..., did nothing but add to a rapidly growing suspicion that Chris Watts had done something truly awful. He settled on a strategy of playing dumb and oblivious. 


His story was a nightmare of speculative improbabilities and a poorly executed strategy of narrative misdirection and obfuscation. Watts, though tragically lethal, was also shockingly inept. As the investigation surrounding the whereabouts of his missing family intensified, scrutiny of his implausible story and general insouciance began to dictate the tone of the investigation. After several unconvincing media interviews, lengthy questioning by local, state and federal authorities (including both the Colorado Bureau of Investigation [CBI] and the FBI) Watts agreed to sit for a polygraph examination. He was informed by authorities that he'd not only failed but that he was perhaps one of the worst liars in the history of polygraphs. Whether his results were reported accurately (or he was bluffed) he quickly began to unravel.


Watts has told several versions of the murders and what occurred (including a staggeringly idiotic version in which he claimed to have killed Sha'nann in a reflexive rage response to Sha'nann killing their young daughters) but eventually Watts confessed to murdering his family. As part of his confession and plea deal with the Weld County Colorado D.A., Sha'nann's own family asked that the prosecution set aside the possibility of Watts receiving the death penalty. Watts will spend the rest of his life in prison. 


During the initial investigation of his then missing family, authorities discovered that Watts had been involved in a two month affair with a thirty-one year old female co-worker. Her name is Nichol Kessinger. She might be the most hated woman in America. Rooted in a bitter mixture of karmic permissibility and a refillable script of selective indignation, loathing Nichol has become a morbid form of sport. And it's become a problem.


While Nichol was in fact involved in a romantic affair with Chris Watts, and while her initial reaction to realizing that Chris Watts had likely wiped out his entire family, Kessinger did attempt to both hide the affair and clean up electronic links to the affair. It didn't look particularly good, but it was absolutely understandable. It was self-preservation and it was unapologetically efficient. It raises some questions but it doesn't come close to revealing a co-conspirator. As such, authorities have not charged Nichol Kessinger with a single crime related to the murders of Sha'nann, Bella, and Celeste. Not a single criminal charge. Prior to the confession that led to his being sentenced, Watts never came close to suggesting that anyone else was involved in the planning, commission, or concealment of his murders.


One of the most fascinating, and sadly overlooked aspects of Nichol Kessinger's proximity to such a horrible crime is less about who she is a person and more about what she came to represent to the case in relation to the victims and the motivation of their husband/father murderer. In a number of comments and opinions (found in various social media posts/video comment sections) discussing Kessinger and the case, people tend to avoid trying to understand Kessinger the person. I'm not surprised. The totality of her life has been edited down to a moment of her life. This moment of her life strikes at the very core of what those who hate her most, need most from her. To justify their understandable moral outrage directed at Watts, some have felt compelled to bolster their social media witch-hunting cred by insisting that Kessinger, even if not directly involved, is no less guilty than Watts himself. In their need to understand the why of such a terrible crime, they need the fuse, and the match that provided the spark. They need Kessinger to be a shallow and reprehensible family-jacking whore with no morals and no integrity. Once she is all of those things, it requires just a small step forward to call her a murderer. And even if the latter is never proven criminally, they draw comfort from a moral failure conviction for the former.


Thinking of her as a flawed human being who willingly got involved in an affair with a then married man (who spent a great deal of his time convincing her that his marriage was fractured and damaged beyond repair) humanizes her. Those who advocate for her being "convicted," are always more sure of the need for a desired outcome than they are about legal requirements and due process. The idea that a man capable of murdering his wife and young children might also be capable of manipulating a female colleague into believing that his marriage was over, is completely lost on them. That Kessinger was naive, impetuous, and far too romantically optimistic is, without a doubt, a fair charge. I very much doubt that she would attempt a defense of such a statement. But even if true in a manner that reveals character traits conducive to situationally suspect moral fiber, it's miles away from legal or moral responsibility for the obliteration of a family.


Those who hate Nichol Kessinger for participating in an affair cannot separate the affair from the murders. This is usually sidestepped in a blizzard of nonsensical word salad that nearly always fails to admit that what they really want simply isn't feasible. They want to lock away what she represents. She represents fear. The fear of profound personal betrayal (haven't we all had moments of anxiety as it relates to the fragility of marital/relationship fidelity) and doesn't that fear strike at the very things (e.g., esteem, self confidence, self worth, and trust) we attempt to protect most? Once the terrible truth about Watts and the savage murder of his family was flashed to our media saturated lives, "case-canon," was inevitable. Justice for the murdered was rightfully demanded. But what of the other woman? The hatred and suspicion was automatic. Again, what followed was predictable. "She did this. She caused this. SHE has blood on HER hands. She is just as guilty as Chris." That small step taken, presumption of innocence was replaced by an assumption of guilt. 


The initial script read:


"Because Kessinger participated in an affair with a married man, who then killed his wife and kids, she too is guilty. She seduced him. He's the monster but she was in the lab cooking up the psychopathy. This is what happens when you target and stalk a beautiful family. She's evil, awful, disgusting (once on a roll, the insult/adjective dam usually fails, flooding the landscape with invective) and that family would probably be alive today if she hadn't forced her way in. She used her body and sexuality to lure him. She wanted what Sha'nann had."


This is basically the blindfolded masses drunkenly and wildly swinging at logical fallacy pinatas. 


Not only does this provide a disgusting level of cover to Chris Watts (more on that later) it ignores the deeper questions. If a six-eight week affair caused an otherwise mentally healthy father and husband to annihilate his family, why is this outcome the exception and not the rule? If some hold that Watts killed his family in order to secure a relationship with a "willing," Kessinger, why can't the argument be made that he would have killed them in order to change the mind of an unwilling Kessinger? We know the actual circumstances that led to his decision to kill his family. But we don't know that those were the only circumstances that would have resulted in similar actions with a modified reason. His cowardice compelled him to identify a reason. That doesn't mean he wasn't pathetic enough to make those reasons malleable. 


The narrative set, many thought it would only be a matter of weeks before Kessinger would be arrested and tried as an accomplice. But it didn't happen. Unwilling to even entertain the idea that authorities simply found no evidence that warranted criminal charges, newly created YouTube channels offered the 120-minute criminology degree with a minor in identifying each of the 2,327 distinct facial twitches that "prove," guilt. Home security cameras and pixelated images of red cars. Cell tower pings, (analysis then provided by people who don't understand cell phone tower pings) deleted texts, pawn shop rings, and Kessinger's Google searches would finally produce the anticipated mugshots. Still, it didn't happen. It still hasn't. It probably won't. The narrative was dead. Hate with a karma chaser has replaced evidence and truth.


One of the many problems with viewing Kessinger in this light is that it leads to believing that we can right a moral failure with a judicial solution. Hubris then leads some to believe that it's their duty to collect on that moral debt. I have read thousands of comments that prove this very point. A comment I read a few months ago said: "Even if she didn't actually participate in the murders, she caused them. She should be sent to prison for life." Another measured and not at all hysterical comment read: "I don't even care what they arrest her for, as long as she's convicted." 


Really? Anyone else see how a judicial system regulated by karma and moral indignation might be a massive shit show? On the fringes of Kessinger haters there are people who wouldn't lose a moment of sleep if Kessinger was hauled to Salem, Massachusetts and tried for being a witch. And even if most would argue against it going quite that far, a number of people are absolutely fine with her social isolation and hiding. For others, her personal shame is actually a source of happiness. Talk about low standards. That their personal glee in the isolation of a person who hasn't been accused, tried, or convicted of a single crime, says something more profound about them than it does about Kessinger is lost on them.


Some argue that one of Kessinger's biggest failures is that she hasn't "proven," that she is innocent of involvement in the murders. Those people argue that she should "have," to take a polygraph. Sometimes they go on to argue that she should apologize for the affair. Arguments like these are the result of people becoming obsessed and manic in their belief that Kessinger owes anyone anything or that anything she did would change a single made up mind. Our legal system requires the state prove a defendant guilty, not that a person (who hasn't even been charged) prove their innocence. And even if she tried, it would be a disaster. If Kessinger wrote a thousand letters of apology and passed twenty polygraph tests, the very people who demanded she do so wouldn't be moved in the least. 


*No polygraph: "She's guilty and afraid to submit to a polygraph. She'd be caught lying." 

*Multiple passed polygraph tests: "See, she's so sociopathic, she learned how to beat them. She's even more evil than we thought." 


An odd phenomenon is now active as it relates to Kessinger, Chris Watts, and Sha'nann Watts. So much of the visceral hatred of Kessinger has given fuel and cover for a coward in a Wisconsin maximum security prison to once again look for a woman to blame for his actions. Those who continue to put even a portion of his crimes on his mistress, are reducing his culpability. I imagine that he enjoys that. First, he blamed Sha'nann for killing his daughters and now some are allowing him to blame Kessinger. Congratulations. Way to give him a small measure of peace. As long as people refuse to hold him accountable for every aspect of his crimes, he feels less culpable. Kessinger has been investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies and not a single charge has been filed. If that changes, I will see what the state has and what a jury finds. But until then, she is guilty of having participated in an affair with a garbage human who murdered his family. The affair was his responsibility to stop. He was married. He had taken marriage vows. He was responsible. Every single time I read a comment about how Kessinger seduced him and was basically a force of nature that Watts couldn't resist, I feel the onset of a crushing headache. That line of reasoning plays right into his hands. Because if Kessinger really was something so strong that he against his will he was pulled into an affair, then just wait for him to argue that Sha'nann being a Type-A personality that made him feel unappreciated and small, played a part in his killing her. If he is allowed to be super weak when it comes to Kessinger, he'll argue the same as it relates to Sha'nann. 


I can hold that I don't like what Kessinger did (the affair) and still hold that her participation in the affair isn't the unforgivable sin. Millions of people have committed adultery. It's not a great look and it harms people and relationships. But it isn't comparable to murdering a wife and mother. 


Those who continue to wish all manner of misery and plague to befall Ms. Kessinger are free to harbor such wishes and thoughts. But their doing so doesn't honor the memories of a murdered mother and her children. It's the felexive slashing at the curtain that hides behind it a simple truth. Chris Watts murdered his family because he wasn't enough of a man to address and deal with the problems that for years, had consumed his life. He wouldn't confront and he wouldn't fight to make better a marriage that was badly broken by lack of communication, uncontrolled debt, hubris, poor health, and structure. In Nichol Kessinger he found escape. In Chris Watts, Kessinger thought she had found a chance at her own version of happiness. That she was among the many people in his life that couldn't see the rage and resentment grow to the point of a final terrible fracture, doesn't make her responsible for all of the micro-fractures that he had become practiced at concealing. 


He is responsible. He alone is responsible. Absent a needle, an easy to hit vein, and a cocktail of drugs that would've paralyzed his diaphragm and stopped his heart, he's where he should be. He doesn't deserve compassion manufactured by his residual manipulation, and Nichol Kessinger doesn't deserve a life sentence of bitterness and blame for a crime she did not commit. I'll defend that stance in the second and final part of this article. 


(End, Part 1)



Copyright © 2019 Drew B. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2024 Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

The Billy Jensen Fallout: An Op-Ed


There is a trend in the true crime community attempting to gain traction with hashtag use attached to posts regarding a recent case of sexual harassment involving one of the TCC's own, true crime investigative journalist and podcaster, Billy Jensen. The trend is called, #StartByBelieving. "Start By Believing" is a public awareness campaign launched in 2011 by the organization EVAW International (End Violence Against Women), and, according to its social media pages, focuses on "the public response to sexual violence." Part of this campaign initiative is teaching the proper response to accounts of sexual violence, which should include phrases like, "I believe you," "I'm sorry this happened," and "I am here for you." Such empathetic, supportive statements are entirely appropriate for one-on-one confidences between victims and their counselors or loved ones, but are in direct conflict to the required protocol human resource departments and law enforcement agencies are required to follow when investigating claims. The question as it pertains to the study of true crime is: SHOULD we believe?

Some victim advocates emphatically apply the principles of this social justice movement - which also endeavors to end the silence surrounding sexual assault by emboldening victims to report their experiences - to non-violent cases of sexual harassment and misconduct, as well. Incidents - like Billy Jensen's - that are typically handled through confidential mediation in the workplace are being publicized by champions of the movement, without regard for the privacy of the accused. The Fifth Amendment U.S. constitutional right to due process and the concept that "there are two sides to every story" are summarily dismissed by radicals who insist on standing by every woman who comes forward with a sexual assault allegation. Social media commenters expressing a dissenting opinion or suggesting a more levelheaded approach (such as, "let's see how this plays out with officials") are instantly attacked and accused of perpetuating the cycle of violence against women. One true crime group mandates in their rules that discussion of a particular case is permitted, but any remarks deemed as critical about an alleged abuse victim will result in a permanent ban; rules about speculating on the culpability of the suspect - as yet uncharged by law enforcement - are far more relaxed, however. One advocate even admonished "insensitive" comments about victimization because they could be potentially triggering to other sexual assault survivors reading a post. How are we supposed to educate, spread awareness, and have the discussions - as crusaders of various causes are always imparting - if benign, yet unpopular or alternative points of view are suppressed? 

Though I have not participated - or been shunned - in any social media group discussions surrounding this topic, my personal solution is to take the issue to my blog, where no one will tell me what to believe and where I will freely express my opinion with the same conviction a victim is encouraged to have in sharing their truth. But most true crime enthusiasts don't use such a platform; they look to online community posts to learn and engage. They, too, are interested in contributing their own thoughts and receiving validation, but are often afraid themselves of being victimized by the intimidators who shut down insights which are anything less than blindly supportive of accusers. Even worse, the only reason I can even even write this article is I'm a woman; a man questioning a sexual abuse claim hasn't a prayer of surviving in an online community; he will inevitably be labeled a misogynist, an incel, a victim basher, or toxic in his masculinity. In this post-#MeToo era, men are terrified to participate in discussions about sexual harassment in the workplace.

As this issue pertains to the Billy Jensen case, a smattering of screenshots taken from various social media public posts regarding the still-developing news is posted below. (A little backstory: the Billy Jensen/Paul Holes podcast, The Murder Squad, went on hiatus last December during an internal investigation into a sexual misconduct allegation against Jensen by a co-worker. The investigation concluded with the firing of Jensen, followed by a lawsuit filed by the accuser against the podcast's parent company, Exactly Right Podcast Network, which is owned by My Favorite Murder podcasters, Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. The lawsuit, which did not depose Jensen, was settled through mediation. Exactly Right announced in May that Murder Squad was canceled, but offered no explanation or statement about Jensen, likely due to non-disclosure agreements. Rumors abounded, confusing allusions were posted via social media by community leaders, but nothing definitive was known until true crime podcaster, Jenn Tisdale of Too Many Jennifers, took to her microphone June 15 to address her insider knowledge of the Exactly Right mediation, as well as recount her own, separate, unreported sexual abuse incident with Jensen from 2019.)

The first hints of a brewing crisis began with this victim advocate's post on June 13, via Twitter; the suggestion of "Allegations should be enough to stop supporting those" harkens back to the Salem witch trials:

Replies on the same Tweet, including a snarky and defensive retort from the original poster:


Misguided, cruel comments lobbed at user "j.b. @s.c." during a June 18, 2022, discussion on Instagram about the Billy Jensen debacle, when much of the true crime community was still in the dark about the bombshell dropped on accuser Jenn Tisdale's podcast June 15. Ironic statement "Don't defend people you don't know anything about" by a user who is defending accusers she knows nothing about:
1.)
2.)

On a June 21, 2022, Instagram post, the true crime community at large was instructed to #StartByBelieving Jensen's accusers, with these succeeding comments:

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *   

So, why shouldn't we automatically believe claims of assault in the true crime community? Researchers of the Ted Bundy case know the simple answer to this question: Rhonda Stapley. (Message me if you need enlightening.) For everyone else, if Depp v. Heard wasn't enough to convince the world that women are capable of both defaming their former partners with false abuse allegations, as well as being domestic violence aggressors themselves, here are a few other examples of female crime-fabrication at its finest: Sherri Papini, Susan Smith, Diane Downs, and Jennifer Wilbanks (the "runaway bride" from Georgia). Each of them - with the exception of Smith - intentionally (not mistakenly) purported false sexual or physical assault against them to authorities. Famous - and dramatic - cases aside, perhaps you've known a scorned woman determined to retaliate against her ex with manufactured assertions of spousal abuse, infidelity, embezzlement, or parental neglect. Even if she doesn't file charges with police or in a divorce/custody petition, she may launch a smear campaign in her and her former partner's community. How easy it is in the digital and social media age to damage a person's reputation with a few strokes of the keyboard. Hell hath no fury.

From Twitter, regarding the Jensen case; hats off to this user:

Skepticism is healthy. It's what inspires students of true crime to ask questions about the knowledge they've accumulated and investigate for themselves. Why would critical thinking and independent thought ever be discouraged in an environment of learning? The challenges and diversity that open-mindedness produces are beneficial to group discussion, as they provide color and context to a subject matter, and enhance the cognition of everyone involved. True crime groups insist on respectful treatment of all members, and differences of opinion are protected through debate moderation. Outside of group governing, however, such ethical practices are only sporadically observed on personal posts or in public forums, as the first sequence of screenshots above disappointingly attest.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Lest we forget in the wake of #MeToo when accusations of sexual misconduct preponderated the news and powerful men fell from grace like dominoes, that women, too, can be sexual predators. Even as this article is being written, yet another school teacher has been charged with raping her teenage student in New York, and Ghislaine Maxwell has been sentenced to twenty years in prison as a convicted sex offender/child sex trafficker. In serial killer history, both Karla Homolka and Rose West actively participated in the sexual violence (and murders) of many young girls and women alongside their husbands. As it turns out, sexual predation by a female - to a lesser degree than the aforementioned cases - is the predominant theme in the he-said-she-said involving Billy Jensen and Jenn Tisdale.

There is a lot to this story, as well as other events which have transpired within the Jensen debacle. This article is not aiming to present a transactional report, but uninformed readers can gather more from several podcasts which have covered the scandal, as well as Reddit threads, which have been surprisingly thoughtful, organized, and educational. Briefly, after Tisdale (on her podcast) accused Jensen of slapping her during drunken foreplay in a hotel, Jensen released a statement on his website denying the slap and posting a wealth of text messages between the two friends (or amicable colleagues) which demonstrated a smitten Tisdale pushing for years-long, continued correspondence and meetings with Jensen after their hookup - not a traumatized assault victim harboring fear or resentment. (Tisdale admitted she forgave Jensen for the alleged slap after he - according to her - didn't recall it, but apologized anyway the next day.) 

The incident itself isn't terribly relevant, especially when considering how it would have played out in court had Tisdale pressed charges or filed suit against Jensen (assuming the case wouldn't be thrown out). Tisdale would make an easy target for character assassination by Jensen's defense attorney. Her admitted, ongoing use of cocaine and prolonged, "feral" physical abuse of a former boyfriend that resulted in seven arrests would be introduced. Her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder - including its manifestation of emotional blackmail of guys to appease her abandonment phobia - would be crucified, supported by texts in which she attempted on multiple occasions to manipulate Jensen into spending time alone with her; (he repeatedly declined these invitations). Her morals would be suspect, substantiated by her admission of being "a horny gal" and the publicly accessible porn tapes she filmed with adult film star, James Deen, in which she is often slapped on her buttocks. She would be mercilessly grilled about her decisions to both a.) not lodge a complaint against Jensen soon after the incident, and b.) her motivation for publicizing it three years later, which was preceded by a Tweet proclaiming she was "champing [sic] at the ol' bit" to talk about her experience. As a former stand-up comic and now media personality who frequently parades her very personal matters, she would be portrayed as an attention-seeker in need of an audience. 

But perhaps the most damaging line of questioning in this hypothetical cross-examination would concern Tisdale's texts to Jensen two days after the 2019 incident, requesting to come to his hotel room yet again, and for him to send her "a beanie pic for my spank bank." See, Tisdale was the director of a true crime festival, Death Becomes Us, where this hookup with a then-unknown Jensen took place. The root of any sexual harassment incident is power - when did Jensen have the power? After such annihilation in court, Tisdale would be vilified as the power-abusing aggressor, and - as is already the case - perceived as vindictive and opportunistic in coming forward, the impropriety of a nonconsensual slap, thus, invalidated. Perhaps during the next sexual misconduct drama to rock this community, advocates should trot out a more credible "victim" to prop up their hopeful initiative of sweeping the TCC with our own #MeToo movement.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *   

The cult-like demands for blind loyalty by victim advocates who've pounced on the Jensen case are reminiscent of expectations in another, far more severe, crime from recent years in the TCC: Chris Watts. Though Watts was not a sexual violence case, community response was significant for its imbalanced treatment of victims and inflexible mentions of the dead. Students of this familicide experienced backlash not from community leaders, but from fellow, amateur participants who were aghast at any criticism leveled at Shan'ann Watts. Comments about Shan'ann's emasculation of Watts; her hypochondria and possible Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; her excessive spending that landed the couple in financial bankruptcy; and her questionable decision to keep her children in daycare for approximately eight hours a day while she worked her multi-level marketing scam - er, job - from home, were tantamount to blaming Shan'ann for her own death. Community members refusing to address such elements in the couple's marriage missed out on a great deal of understanding about Watts's criminal psychology. Shan'ann, for all her faults and mistakes in this world, became a saint in death, to be revered as nothing less than a shining icon of domestic perfection. This hero worship of the victim was surpassed only by rabid, vengeful calls for justice - specifically, the arrest of this horror story's villain, the evil harlot, Nichol Kessinger. A figure never charged with a single offense in this case, Kessinger was nonetheless subjected to such unabashed vitriol, doxxing, and threats, she changed her name, went into hiding, and hasn't been heard from since 2018 - that would include an "impending" arrest predicted by most case followers. There was no "Start By Believing" hashtag rally for Kessinger, even though she did qualify for and receive victim support services from the state of Colorado.

Furthermore in this example of how filtering speech about victims can be unreasonable and taken to extremes, the mission to silence Shan'ann's critics has recently evolved into a large-scale lawsuit spearheaded by Shan'ann's family. Circumventing YouTube policy which proved unfavorable to them, the Rzuceks have retained a British law firm specializing in Internet law with the hope of shuttering YouTube content creators who are financially compensated for inventing conspiracy theories about the Watts case. The Frankie Rzucek, Jr., "Stop Being Mean To Me!" campaign also endeavors to threaten legal action against social media users who post hateful remarks against his sister. Apparently inept at simply powering off his computer, Frankie, Jr., says the relentless online "torment and slander" has caused the Rzuceks unbearable suffering. He wants it known that he doesn't wish to trample on free speech rights nor impose stricter governmental controls, though. You, too, can donate to this unending fundraiser for attorneys' fees, the goal of which is £25,000 - no wait, it's £45,000; my bad - it's now £75,000.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *   

In the cases of murder and violence we as a community study, of course we empathize with victims (and their families); we seek to understand the psychology of perpetrators, but never condone their crimes. In fact, nothing seems to offend or unite us more than the stereotype that we're all dangerous and mentally ill like the  criminals we research. Though the majority of true crime cases conclusively identify victims, sexual harassment isn't always a definitive criminal or prosecutable offense. In such polarizing cases, a deference to the law, rather than alliance to a "side," may be the prudent choice for the uninvolved periphery: 

1.) Sexual harassment, though not always a crime, is litigable in civil court.  
2.) Americans are afforded a presumption of innocence, as well as a protected guarantee, under the Sixth Amendment, to confront one's accusers in a criminal trial (a right equalized for victims with the allowance of victim impact statements during a sentencing hearing). 
3.) Both assault and libel are punishable offenses. So rather than "#StartByBelieving" or blasting conjecture, gossip, and personal drama across social and content-creation networks, leaders should advise accusers and suspects alike to proactively pursue resolution through mediation or arbitration. 
    Victims are in the best possible position in history to receive judgments in their favor; the #MeToo movement forced most companies to revise their sexual harassment policies and case management procedures.  

(Though not obvious in his reply here, the verified red-circle user has exploited the Jensen case to vocalize his own bitter, professional grievances against Jensen throughout the TCC.) The replies from the yellow-circle user are the incisive ones worthy of spotlighting; from Twitter:
1.) 
2.)

Sexual harassment - particularly when the lines are blurred between "assault" and "violation" - is a difficult, touchy subject matter to cover, and one that will likely - if this article is even read - ignite controversy amounting to the same ambivalence about writing it. As much of a train wreck as Jenn Tisdale is, other rumored instances of sexual misconduct attributed to Billy Jensen - plus the disingenuous, deceitful apology he issued regarding his anonymous co-worker's claim - culminate in a portrait of him as an equally reprehensible sleazebag. I have no horse in this race and am not attempting to absolve Jensen; for the record, slapping anybody - female or male - is wrong. Some TCC members believe a responsibility to warn the community about predatory behavior is incumbent upon those in the know. However, in this cancel culture, the ease with which anyone can take to their social media platforms to impair another's life, rejecting official avenues of confrontation and solution, is outrageous. Reiterating, defamation and cyberbullying are criminal offenses just like sexual abuse; they require as much cowardice from offenders as sexual predation on the physically weaker, younger, and subordinate does. I can only wonder if extremists would so passionately defend alleged victims who were accusing and slandering their own fathers, husbands, brothers . . . . . or sons.


Copyright © (2022) Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, April 14, 2022

Authenticating My Work and My Identity [personal post]

As referenced in my 4/14/22 video posted to my YouTube channel - the link to which can be found at the very end of this article - here are the screenshots from my attempted communication with the unethical true crime blog which has stolen my identity and is impersonating me, without cause or consent.




 

("as E. does when writing as Tabitha Kent" shows a pattern of E.B. blogging under assumed identities.)


(The screenshots I requested for proof that E.B. had been corresponding with "a" Cynthia Walker as she claimed were never provided.)



(I didn't know at the time that "Kelly Madison" is one of E.B.'s Facebook sock accounts she uses to communicate in Scott Peterson true crime FB groups.)
 

UPDATE: I have now added (on 4/21/22) to my blog article a copy of the complaint I submitted to WordPress (the host site of C****P****) on 4/15/22, reporting the unethical blog for identity theft:

I have recently discovered that the WordPress blog, C****P****, has been fraudulently using my name - Cynthia Walker - to pen and post articles which I have not written. I have never communicated with the blog's portal, nor personally with the owner (E. B.), requesting C****P**** to host my articles or collaborate on content, nor have I given consent for their writers to "ghostwrite" under my name or for the blog to list me as a "Guest Writer" under its "Writers" tab. I was never informed in advance by the blog or the owner that they would be engaging in such deception and fraud. These activities were discovered by me on a random visit to C****P****.

I have attempted to communicate through the blog's portal, outlining the history of my acquaintanceship with Ms. B. and requesting that my name be removed from all blog credits. In written response to my message, Ms. B. pretended as if I did not sound like the Cynthia she'd been communicating with for the last several months (there was no communication), suggested someone had hacked my email (no one has), stated I had been "warned" to use a pen name before submitting articles (again, I've never submitted articles), and then suggested I was impersonating someone I've never heard of. Needless to say, the attempted communication was futile, I realized I was not dealing with a rational or stable individual, and, thus, I blocked my email from further communication with C****P****. Ms. B. has subsequently spun another story, posting on her various social media platforms - including her C****P**** Facebook page and C****P**** Instagram account - allusions and accusations that I am an imposter who is secretly her ex-boyfriend, and that he (somehow) has been submitting articles to her blog disguised as me (oh, and cyberharassing her as "Cynthia Walker" [me] ). Like I said, we are not dealing with a sane individual here. I would not be at all surprised if manufactured correspondence is eventually released by her "proving" that I - or her ex-boyfriend? - wrote the articles in order for her to save face and not admit she herself fraudulently penned them. However, I can prove that, prior to contacting her blog about the forged articles in March 2022, I have had no communication with Ms. B. since August of 2020.

In any event, bylines and other credit within her blog still remain as "Cynthia Walker." I know this is a direct impersonation of me, and not merely a pen name Ms. B. randomly chose, because twice in the articles penned under my name, she referenced an article I wrote under my own true crime blog, linked my blog, and has included personal details about me as a "Guest Writer" that are true, such as my residential location and my specialty as a researcher/writer of the Ted Bundy case. I can provide WordPress with the email exchange if requested.

The content I wish to have removed or changed is the following:
1.) Article entitled "Scott Peterson: Loathing Amber Frey," posted 2/19/22:
a) The fraudulent byline "Cynthia Walker" needs to be changed.
b) For removal, there is a link within the article under "Related Articles" entitled, "Was Gabby Petito a Victim of Domestic Violence?" This is MY article which can be found on my blog, TrueCrimeTrueLifeBlog.Blogspot.com. It was this October 2021 article that apparently somewhat inspired two of the three articles falsely credited to me on C****P****. My authentic Blogspot article is copyrighted, and I have not given C****P**** permission to link it.
c) Finally, at the very end of the C****P**** article, there is additional false credit to me, which should be changed:
    "Header Photo: Provided by Cyncee Walker"
    ("Cyncee" is the moniker I use in my publicly posted email address.)

2.) Article entitled "Scott Peterson: The Truth Is Fluid. The Laci Peterson Sightings.," posted 3/6/22:
a) The fraudulent byline "Cynthia Walker" needs to be changed.
b) There is also text within the article, several paragraphs in, where the mystery writer - writing under my name - discussed my aforementioned blog article as if she/he wrote it themselves:
    "One cannot help draw parallels to another domestic violence-linked case which I covered on my True Crime, True Life blog; Gabby Petito’s. While it serves no purpose to this post to examine Petito’s own recorded abusiveness towards her #VanLife boyfriend Brian Laundrie, we must inspect the staggering number of eyewitness reports detailing...."
    This fraudulent, first-person reference to my article should be removed. Use of this content may also infringe its/my copyright.

3.) Article entitled "Kwang Chul Joy from Netflix' 'Worst Roommate Ever' & Scott Peterson," posted 3/9/22:
a) My name should be removed from the fraudulent byline "C. Cortez & E*** B****edited by Cynthia Walker."

4.) Article entitled "Scott Peterson: The Car Door Lie," posted 3/12/22:
a) My name should be removed from the fraudulent byline at the end of the article, "Edited by E*** B****, with Cynthia Walker."

5.) Article entitled "Chris Watts: The Long Shadow Of Scott Peterson," posted 4/9/22:
a) The fraudulent byline "Cynthia Walker" needs to be changed.
b) At the end of the article, the mystery writer has written in the first-person, fraudulently misrepresenting my name:
    "Without inflating my own significance as a humble student of the Peterson and Watts cases, I noted with astonishment the feedback to my posts. A quiet observer, never breaking a group rule, I was not only removed from several pro-Peterson and –Watts groups as a result of my blogging for C****P****, but threatened, stalked and once more impersonated. To that end, rest assured that neither I nor C****P**** will yield, though we will leave the channels of communication open to any and all in order to find a mutually beneficial solution."
    Again, I wrote nothing in this article, but this particular content - having been written in first-person - is a flagrant violation of my name and makes false claims about my online community involvements. The whole paragraph should be removed.
c) There is a tag - "The real Cynthia Walker" - at the end of the article which should be removed.

6) Within the C****P**** tab "Writers":
a) Under "Guest Writers" this entire, fraudulent entry should be removed:
    "Cynthia Walker
    Ted Bundy, Chris Watts/Familicide and True Crime researcher from Dunwoody, Georgia."

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I will be happy to provide further documentation, if required.

- Cynthia Walker
(Walker.Cyncee@Gmail.com)


After I filed my report to WordPress on 4/15/22, a sixth article forged under my name was posted to the C****P**** blog on 4/19/22. On this same date, the middle initial "D." was added to the name "Cynthia Walker" on all bylines in an attempt by E.B. to create a separate persona from me (thereby, covering her fraud). On 4/23/22, under C****P****'s "Guest Writers" page, the illegitimate "Cynthia D. Walker's" residential location was changed from "Dunwoody, GA" to the state of Georgia, in general.

 
Link to video: https://youtu.be/Qh9W_zQ6aCo



Copyright © (2022) Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, April 9, 2022

My Social Media Accounts [personal post]


DISCLAIMER : I have never written, edited, or collaborated on articles - nor have I given consent to be featured as a guest writer - on any other true crime blogs except my own, "True Crime, True Life™" and "Ted Bundy Musings and Research Projects™." Other true crime articles and editing credit presented under my name - or, the illegitimate "Cynthia D. Walker" allegedly living in the state of Georgia - on any site except Blogspot/Blogger are fraudulent. (You will find this nearly-identical disclaimer on my Blogger user profile, as well.)


All profile links provided below are accounts associated only with the email address Walker.Cyncee@Gmail.com in order to authenticate their legitimacy and validate my identity. Please feel free to click on the linked email within any platform to send me a message, and I will gladly respond via the same email address to verify my identity by answering any questions you have about my content. Other profiles and accounts in which this same Gmail address is not publicly viewable are imposters - except for my LinkedIn profile, where you must first connect with me in order to view my email address.


Ted Bundy Musings and Research Projects™

True Crime, True Life™

my YouTube channel

my Twitter account

my LinkedIn profile

my Quora account

my Reddit account

my Facebook profile



Copyright © (2022) Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, October 22, 2021

Was Gabby Petito a Victim of Domestic Abuse?


In the wake of the discovery of Gabby Petito's body and the release of the coroner's report stating the cause of death as homicide via strangulation, the world now believes Brian Laundrie killed his fiancée, Gabby. As well, with the YouTube availability of the bodycam footage from what has been dubbed the "Moab Incident" involving Utah authorities and Laundrie & Petito two weeks prior to her death, the world is also convinced Gabby suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her #VanLife co-inhabitant, Laundrie. In the same vein, Gabby's parents have recently established the Gabby Petito Foundation, whose mission statement, in part, is to "provide aid to organizations that assist victims of domestic violence situations, through education, awareness, and prevention strategies." Inarguably, a worthwhile cause. But is the perception of Gabby as a domestic violence victim accurate, or are we merely inclined to infer as much because she was ultimately murdered (with Laundrie named as "a person of interest")? 

Since 2017, the cultural response to sex-related crimes against women has changed dramatically, thanks to the #MeToo and #Time'sUp movements. As we've witnessed the downfall of industry giants from Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Jeffrey Epstein to prominent doctors like Larry Nassar, a destigmatization of sexual abuse victims has developed and more women have been emboldened to come forward and/or report their experiences. Not only has the shame surrounding victimization diminished, but, thankfully, intolerance and illegality of any type of abuse against women has reached an all-time high in our society. But has the flood of abuse cases exposed during the #MeToo movement trained us to indiscriminately perceive abuse in every toxic heterosexual relationship? 

In the high-profile true crime homicides which have occurred since #MeToo, domestic abuse has been heavily proposed, but not evidenced, in each of the cases involving a female victim murdered, allegedly, by her male partner: Sha'nann Watts, Kelsey Berreth (killed by fiancé Patrick Frazee), and Suzanne Morphew (trial is currently pending). It is only natural - and prudent - to question whether a pattern of abuse existed in relationships that have ended in murder, a paradigm established not necessarily by the recent social justice movement, but by the landmark Nicole Brown Simpson murder and subsequent trial of the mid-nineties. However, in other highly publicized, alleged partner-homicide cases of the new millennium prior to #MeToo - such as Laci Peterson, Kathleen Peterson, Sheri Coleman, and Susan Powell - discussion of possible domestic abuse was all but absent. Conclusively, the recent, massive exposure of rampant sexual abuse to women has shaped our cognition of other situations and crimes involving female victims. In each of the aforementioned millennial homicide cases, before and after #MeToo, though major problems obviously figured into the relational demises, no prior reports or indications of domestic violence existed between any of the couples. Until Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie. 

If we want to get technical, when romantic partners are involved, a murder itself constitutes "domestic violence." But, the question is whether there was a history of such violence. And, in the Petito/Laundrie relationship, there was. Sort of. Notably, the Moab, Utah Incident is, thus far, the only example of volatile physicality between the couple to have surfaced - (eye-witness reports about Brian Laundrie's confrontational behavior toward a Wyoming restaurant's wait staff on the possible day of Petito's disappearance do not include aggression towards Gabby). But the incident provides much insight into the relationship and illustrates quite a different narrative than news viewers and the true crime community have been willing to accept. Moab authorities on the scene had concluded Gabby, not Brian, was the aggressor in the altercation; but, because of Gabby's murder a mere two weeks later (possibly at the hands of her fiancé), the responding officers are now being blamed by the public for failure to recognize and protect a victim of domestic abuse. Indeed, such outrage was expressed at the Moab police's handling of the dispute after the bodycam footage was released, the city of Moab has launched an investigation into a potential law enforcement breach during the matter. 

The truth is, the Moab authorities got it right. Gabby was the primary aggressor. And Gabby herself admits as much in the video: 
1.) Immediately upon being approached in the van by officers during the traffic stop, she apologetically offers that she'd distracted Brian as he was driving, which resulted in his swerving and striking the curb.
2.) Later during separate questioning of each individual, she admits to having hit Brian in the arm as he was driving (but denies his account that she'd grabbed the wheel).
3.) When given the opportunity to confirm a caller's initial - later, amended - report that Brian had assaulted her as they were "squabbling" outside the van at a grocery store prior to the traffic stop, Gabby instead clarifies she had been the one hitting him, and that Brian grabbed her face (attributing to a cut on her cheek from his nail), but hadn't slapped or punched her.
    Also factoring in to police's theory that Gabby was the aggressor are the visible swollen eye and scratches on Brian's face, neck, and arm; when questioned about these, he explains Gabby had been hitting him outside the grocery store with her phone, but he's "not complaining" - (in other words, he's not intentionally pointing fingers to get Gabby into trouble.) 

In the video, Brian's general version of events is that Gabby "gets worked up sometimes" and, earlier that morning, he'd been trying to distance himself from her, confiscating the van keys and physically pushing her away - which he accepts full accountability for - until she'd taken "a breather." As Petito is quite hysterical, distraught, and tearful during the entirety of the approximate seventy-five minute traffic stop, even describing herself as having "O.C.D. and anxiety," Laundrie's account is entirely plausible. In fact, Petito's only contradiction of Laundrie's narrative is that they'd "been fighting all morning" (not having "a nice morning," as he'd recounted); she never attempts to implicate him for assault. Instead, she pours out her frustrations about Brian, namely that he doesn't believe she can succeed at the social media vlogging she's working on and that he "stresses [her] out." Hardly signs of domestic brutality. He'd been telling her to "shut up" and "calm down" as she was becoming increasingly agitated, thus provoking her to slap him a few times, she reveals. In the end, no charges were filed by officers, neither party involved in the dispute wanted to press charges, and the couple were free to reunite after a forced night of separation. 

The majority of viewers of the bodycam footage are convinced Gabby's behavior during the Moab Incident is typical of an abuse victim who's covering for her abuser by shouldering the responsibility for an escalation. Because Brian says to officers, "She's crazy," and Gabby readily admits her struggles with anxiety, viewers have construed gaslighting and psychological abuse within the relationship which have cultivated the self-recrimination we witness from Gabby. If Gabby was so submissive to Brian, why, when faced with the threat of potential criminal charges being filed against her, didn't she then change her story to paint Brian as the bad guy? Abuse victims, no matter how severely traumatized and brainwashed they are, do not commonly take the legal rap to protect their abusers. They often drop charges against their violent partner, but they don't voluntarily go to jail for them. (Oh, something else battered women don't typically do: risk further harm to themselves by engaging in arguments or fighting back and assaulting their partners.) 

Short of conjuring clairvoyant abilities that would illuminate Gabby's fate, what more could Moab authorities have done in a situation where neither party expressed fear for their safety, their stories weren't conflicting, and they didn't wish to split up (even for one night)? Utah LEOs are required by law in incidents of domestic violence to either make an arrest or issue a citation, which they can do if the victim is no longer in serious danger or if the victim has not sustained serious injury. The officers didn't want to take Petito to jail, but had to separate the couple because they resided in the same van; they followed procedure by issuing a no-contact order to the couple until Laundrie could arrive at police headquarters the following day and sign a waiver removing the protective order. The cop who ultimately decided not to arrest or cite Petito thought he was cutting her a break; even though the crime carried the weight of a class B misdemeanor, the domestic violence battery element would have enhanced the citation, remaining on her criminal record for at least three years even if the charges were dropped or she was acquitted in court. The reason law enforcement could not have intervened to prevent Gabby and Brian's outcome is because domestic abuse wasn't the predominant issue at play; mental health was, and the primary responding officer evaluated as much in his report. Two emotionally unstable people in a dysfunctional, co-dependent romance will continuously be drawn together, perpetuating the cycle of break-ups and reunions with increasing volatility, until the relationship eventually combusts, just as Gabby and Brian's did.

Not only has Gabby's death subsequent to the Moab Incident informed public criticism of law enforcement's decisions during the encounter, but Gabby's very appearance has been an influence. Images of this pretty, vivacious, young woman have infused our collective consciousness through media coverage of the case; we have learned she was a kind, adventurous free spirit greatly loved by her friends and family. Seeing a usually bubbly, waifish, all-American blonde sobbing on video, accused by police of lashing out at her boyfriend, and seemingly helpless to the cruel tragedy that would befall her has undoubtedly elicited sympathy. But despite the fact that Gabby was youthful enough to pass for a seventeen year-old, she was an adult, capable of making her own decisions, as evidenced by the cross-country road trip her parents have attested she'd planned for many months. Most women, at some point in their lives, make terrible mistakes in their choice of romantic partners.....and many of those same women would say they never saw it coming. While some witnesses have described Laundrie as a controlling, possessive boyfriend, there is, at present, nothing to suggest Gabby felt trapped in the relationship, nor were any red flags signaling a potential threat to her life apparent to her or her loved ones. The two had known each other since high school and lived together at Brian's parents' home without incident. Gabby's mother has admitted she was concerned for Gabby's safety as she embarked on her travels, but that she felt at ease because Brian would be with her. Gabby's parents obviously trusted Laundrie. 

Gabby Petito certainly isn't to blame for her own death, nor did she deserve to be murdered. But in order to understand true crime, we must be intellectually honest and recognize that two seemingly contradictory ideas - in this case, that Gabby is an undeserving murder victim AND that she inflicted violence on her fiancé - are not always mutually exclusive. Acceptance of a homicide's contributing elements, as well as the victim's personality defects, doesn't mean condoning of crime nor does it show favoritism toward the perpetrator. Brian Laundrie may have been a sorry boyfriend, but he was not a domestic batterer. He's far worse: he was a coward, a fugitive from justice, and a likely murderer. 

In this post-MeToo era, let us embrace the heightened awareness about sexual abuse the movement has engendered, but guard against any tendency to undermine the principles of Women's Equality by implying a woman is powerless against a domineering man. Doing so only victimizes women further. 


The PDF of the police report from the Moab Incident can be downloaded with a free subscription at https://www.scribd.com/document/525514584/Petito-Redacted


Copyright © (2021) Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.