447: Part 2: The Shady Truth About Nichol Kessinger & The Watts Family Murders

Serialously with Annie Elise

This episode delivers an in-depth forensic and behavioral analysis of Nicole Kessinger, Chris Watts' mistress in the infamous Watts family murders. The host

Key takeaways

• Nicole Kessinger's forensic phone data shows she searched for Shanann Watts in January 2018 and Chris Watts as early as August 2017, directly contradicting her claim of only meeting him in June 2018.
• During police interviews, Kessinger repeatedly claimed memory loss regarding conversations that occurred just weeks prior, yet later submitted highly detailed written statements covering the same events.

Main topics

• Nicole Kessinger police interviews
• Forensic phone data & search history analysis

Notable quotes

I feel like this situation is crazy, regardless whether I give you my phone or not.

Conclusion

The episode underscores how forensic anomalies can remain unprobed when a primary suspect confesses

Transcript preview

Speaker 5 (0:00) Hi. It's me. I miss your face. I was just calling to say hi. Speaker 6 (0:07) Nicole Kessinger, the mistress. She wasn't charged. She wasn't even considered a suspect. But Speaker 3 (0:15) millions still believe she knows more than she let on. Speaker 6 (0:18) Kessinger says Watts deceived her, though, never wearing a wedding ring and lying, saying he was in the final stages of a divorce. This Speaker 7 (0:26) man has a gorgeous house. He has beautiful babies. He has a beautiful wife. He does an awesome job. Like, why would he want to lead this? Speaker 1 (0:39) Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly. Speaker 1 (1:04) and welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly with me, your host, Annie Elise. Now, let me catch you up here because if you're looking at the title of this, you probably see that this is a part two. This is part two of the special update episode to Chris Watts and Nicole Kessinger. Now, if you have not listened to part one yet. I highly encourage you actually homework. I demand you to go back, listen to part one right now. You definitely need all of that for context. Then hop back over here for part two, because today in part two, we are doing a full expose on Nicole Kessinger, Chris Watts' mistress, and who a lot of people believe was involved, which we're going to get into in today's episode, in the infamous Chris Watts family murders. Now, like I mentioned in part one, obviously a lot of people are already familiar with this case. I mean, it's hard not to be. In 2008, if you said the name Casey Anthony, everybody knew who you were talking about and everybody knew what happened. And now in 2026, if you say the name Chris Watts, nearly everybody knows who you're talking about and what happened. However, what isn't as well known are the details leading up to the murders. The inconsistencies after the murders, the weird behavior from Nicole the afternoon after the murders, and all of the conspiracies surrounding whether Chris acted alone or not. If you also already listened to part one, you know that we talked a little bit about Nicole in that episode, but part two is really going to be more heavily focused on her. Was she involved? Was she just the innocent mistress who got caught up in this horrible situation? Was she playing some sort of role in the cover-up? Why was her phone pinging? In odd spots, it shouldn't have been pinging the day of the murders. What happened with her time card the afternoon of the murders? There is so much that I have found along the way. I mentioned in the earlier episode, I've gone through hundreds of pages of phone records, court documents, highlighting things, going through her history, her internet search history. And there is a lot of information in there that we need to dissect and talk about. By the end of today's episode, I think you'll be able to answer the question for yourself of what did Nicole know and how closely was she involved? However, really quickly though, before we get into the episode, you know what I say. Do your own research, form your own opinions. Everything in today's episode is either alleged from court documents or my opinion solely. So do your own research and form your own opinion. But that being said, Speaker 2 (3:41) let's get into the Nicole of it all. Speaker 1 (3:44) So Nicole had an interview with the police on August 16th, 2018. This was three days after the murder of Chris Watts' entire family, where he just annihilated everybody. This interview was over three and a half hours long, and the entire time she is just rambling and then talking her way through it and convincing these FBI agents that there is absolutely nothing to see in regards to her. And she does it in a way that is just truly incomprehensible and frankly mind-boggling. Now let's start within this interview. Nicole says that after meeting Chris in June of 2018, she didn't know Shanann's name. She didn't know it right away and that she didn't even know her name for a while, although he did mention having a significant other. Speaker 4 (4:27) Your relationship with Chris and what you know about Chris and his family and events relating to Chris Watts. He Speaker 7 (4:36) mentioned that he did have a significant other and then he told me that those two were in the process of the separation. Speaker 4 (4:46) Did he mention the children's name or his significant other's name? Speaker 7 (4:51) I didn't know his significant other's name for a while. Speaker 1 (4:54) So if this were true, if she truly did not know Shanann's name, and she didn't learn of it until, you know, well after meeting Chris and starting their affair. Tell me, how is it possible that she was searching for Shanann's name and using her specific name in those searches, and those searches dated back way earlier, before she even met Chris? Now, originally there were reports that she was searching Shanann back in 2017, and around that same time she was also searching Chris's name. However, it was then disclosed that it was a typo, but that there were proven search histories that showed that she was searching Shanann in January of 2018. However, that is not completely correct. Now, I discussed this in my previous video, but after even more research, I learned that there was a significant detail that really gives me pause. So this is coming directly from Crime Online, and I will link this article in the show notes so you can see it for yourself. But it says, Last week, a records supervisor at the Frederick Police Department said that an entry in one of the phone data review reports showed that Kessinger did an internet search for Shanann Watts on September 1, 2017, and that it was a typo, and they referred Crime Online to the Weld County District Attorney's Office for further clarification on that entry, and on additional entries in a different section of phone data review showing that Kessinger searched for Shanann Watts in January 2018, which references multiple deleted searches for Chris Watts dating back to August of 2017. Following a series of email exchanges and phone calls with the Weld County District Attorney's Office regarding the reports, Crime Online spoke by phone to Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke on Monday. Rourke said that the reports reflect what was shown in the forensic analysis of Nicole Kessinger's phone. Michael Rourke said, The dates to which you are referring, in 2017, where it appears she Googled or otherwise searched Shanann, was data that came off of her phone. It is not a typo error in the report. The detectives are reporting what was contained in the data from her phone. I don't know the answer to the question of why or how those dates ended up in her phone. When if the district attorney's office questioned or planned to question Kessinger about data suggesting she was aware of Chris and Shanann for up to a year before the murders, Rourke said that Chris Watt's guilty plea precluded any need to further probe the results of the forensic analysis of Kessinger's phone. Speaker 2 (7:25) Michael Speaker 1 (7:26) Rourke said, We did not get to the point in our investigation of attempting to independently verify that or not because Chris Watt's pled guilty. When you ask me if I have verified that information, the answer to your question is no. Nicole Kessinger told us that she met and started the relationship with the defendant in 2018. So where that anomaly in the data comes from, I can't answer it for you. I don't know the answer to it. I mean, a pretty... loaded statement and I'm going to break it down a little bit too for you, but many suspect that this is actually why Nicole's father kept saying, quote, if Chris confesses, it'll be the end of the case, right? Always like kind of wanting to make sure that it'll be the end if he just confesses that they won't look into his daughter anymore. And a lot of people also think that that's why Chris confessed so quickly after he failed that polygraph test, so that he could essentially save Nicole from being implicated in any of this. Now, what stuck out in that statement to me the most is they are saying there is clear data from the district's attorney's office saying she had searches in her phone dating back to before the murders, before she even met Chris. Why those weren't further investigated was simply because Chris pled guilty and confessed to everything, which is so crazy to me because even though he confessed to it, there's clear forensic data that showed something was afoot. Why else would she be searching these people a year in advance of dating him, a year in advance of the murders? It does not make any sense. And it just feels like a big red flag. Another thing that doesn't really add up as we continue to go through Nicole's interview, all of Speaker 2 (9:10) the footage, all the documents, all these things. Speaker 1 (9:12) Nicole said that she and Chris went on their very first date around her birthday, which was July 7th. She said that right before Father's Day, Chris told her that he had kids, which she apparently thought was really cute, and he also told her that he was separated from his wife, so she assumed he was just a single dad. However, on Father's Day, which was June 17th in 2018, well before their very first date when that whole interaction happened according to Nicole, Shanann wrote a public tribute on her public Facebook page. to Chris about Father's Day. And we know now, through the data, through everything, that Nicole was searching and watching her Facebook account. So she would easily see this and know that they are, in fact, together, and they are not separating, negating her claim that she was under the impression that they were mutually divorcing this entire time. So as she's being asked these questions during this interview, Nicole starts becoming frustrated with the officer who was asking her these pointed questions. And then she actually started even talking over him, saying that she can't remember the details now. Speaker 4 (10:16) You know, anything like that, if he ever made any kind of statements that you were like, whoa, that was weird, or why would he say that, or why did he mention that? Do you understand what I'm looking for? No, Speaker 1 (10:24) I Speaker 4 (10:24) completely Speaker 7 (10:24) understand. I just feel like some of this happened so long ago that I can't tell you. Like, the exact words of the exact conversation at the exact time and place. Because it's like, we had a lot of conversations. I mean, we talked every single day. So it's like, I'm trying to help you guys with the stuff. Like, the stuff that's more current, I can give you guys a lot more, like, detail and exact times. But when you're asking me about something that happened six weeks ago and exactly what was said, it's like, I mean, I'm sure I can give you a general idea. But to be honest with you, like, to pinpoint exact words, it's not going to happen. I'm Speaker 4 (10:59) not. Looking for exact words. Speaker 1 (11:01) Nicole also tried to say that after seeing pictures of the girls in Chris's house, that she was wondering why he wanted to give all of that up. It seemed like a beautiful life. He had these beautiful girls, this amazing life. Why would you ever want to give that up? Speaker 7 (11:14) And we were there not very long, but that time I saw a picture of his wife and one of his kids. And I remember thinking to myself, like, wow, she's so beautiful. And I, like, took a step back, and I was just like... This man has a gorgeous house. He has beautiful babies. He has a beautiful wife. He has an awesome job like Why would he want to leave this? And I remember talking to him about it, and that was the first time that I tried to actually say, what do you think about not separating from your wife? Like, what if you really try to work on this? And he had expressed to me that we've tried to work on this, and it's not working, so that is why we're separating. And I spent some time, like, just... you know kind of because it almost made me feel bad where i was like to the point where Speaker 7 (12:10) I'm engaging in a relationship with a man who Speaker 7 (12:15) The way he described it is in a contractual agreement, but was not in like an emotional relationship with somebody. And for me, the way I would have preferred to do this is to have waited until that contractual agreement was also done. And he was done. And he could have approached me and said, I just had a divorce. You know, maybe we could take this slow. What do you think? But instead it was, oh, we're separated and we're working on a divorce. And... Speaker 7 (12:47) That is the part that I feel bad about because I should have waited on that and I didn't. And I was just like, well, they're already there. But then being in a house, I Speaker 6 (13:01) was Speaker 7 (13:01) just Speaker 6 (13:02) like, why? Speaker 7 (13:02) Fix this. Find a way to fix this. Make it work. And I was trying to push him to do it, and he seemed pretty reluctant to do it. He didn't want to. And I don't know. We were still seeing each other fairly frequently. Speaker 7 (13:20) I kind of like backed away so we weren't hanging out quite as much and we were still close, but it was just like I really wanted him to try. Like I wanted to know that he tried and it didn't work and then he moved on, not. Speaker 7 (13:40) Not that, you know, they both kind of tried and then he got himself into a situation with somebody else. And I don't know. I just thought he had a beautiful life going on, and he could have made it work. That was the way I looked at it from the outside. So Speaker 4 (13:56) is this something you reflected on since this event, or was this you? No, I Speaker 7 (14:00) was doing it then. You said, this doesn't Speaker 4 (14:03) look right. He's kind of, I don't want to be responsible for breaking up a marriage, especially with two children. Is that kind of the gist I'm getting here? I Speaker 7 (14:11) didn't think it didn't look right. I mean, I think he was legitimately sleeping in the basement, and I didn't think that these two were. I mean, I think it was like, hey, we're both stuck in this house for now. We got to sell this. In the meantime, you live here. I live here. We sleep in different rooms. Take care of the kids. That's just like kind of how I took that. And no, I didn't think it didn't look right. I just thought it just seemed like he had so much going on. And it was just beautiful that I was like, why don't you just try this out, you know, and see if you can fix it. And he'd always be like, well, what about us? What about us? I'm like, don't worry about us. That is more important. Like, try to see if you can, like, salvage whatever it is that you have going on with your wife. And, you know, I always got the impression that he was a great father to his kids. Like, always. And so, you know, I was like, be the dad that you want to be. I was like, see if you can make it work. And he just... Like, we kind of talked about it off and on for like a few weeks, and I was just kind of like, I don't know. Like, I think I was kind of like cold feet and about it when I went after I went over his house. And Speaker 1 (15:15) she says that she actually had encouraged him at one point to be with his family and to make his marriage work. And the way that she says this. is very, very disturbing to me. Almost like, yeah, we had an affair, but I'm actually this really selfless person who was trying to encourage him to make his marriage work. I was telling him he had such a beautiful family. Why not try to make that work? And encouraging him to get back together and rectify things with Shanann as though she is like the martyr in this. Speaker 7 (15:42) I remember when he was in North Carolina and he was like trying to patch things up with his wife and he told me he loved me and I was like... Speaker 7 (15:59) But the Speaker 1 (16:00) reality in all of this is that she was extremely in- in Chris's life involved in a relationship so much that she actually had literally ridden in Shanann's car. But in her mind, surely the detectives must believe that she's just this innocent bystander, right? She just happened to have sex with Chris, but she's a good person. I mean, she literally tries to act like their relationship was barely anything, nothing, casual. Yet her phone logs showed that they called and texted nearly every single day. But Nicole wants you to believe that she was actually trying to, like, counsel Chris to repair his marriage? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And it even gets way more obvious and