A later graphic upgrades the number to “thousands.”
Once the claim appears as text embedded in a polished image, it looks like a headline rather than an estimate. Subsequent pages copy the image without checking the original evidence. Search results then show dozens of posts repeating the same sentence, creating the illusion that multiple sources have confirmed it.
In reality, they may all descend from one unsourced caption.
This is known as circular reporting. Repetition increases visibility but not reliability.
A useful test is to ask where the number came from. If every search leads back to social-media pages quoting one another, the quantity remains unverified no matter how often it appears.
Why the Story Produced Sympathy
The reaction to Watson cannot be understood without considering the nature of the victims’ convictions.
Violence against children is among the most universally condemned forms of crime. Many readers instinctively identify with the victims of abuse and their families. When they encounter a story about a prisoner attacking convicted offenders, that anger can be redirected into approval of the attacker.
Online platforms intensify that response. Short posts reward moral certainty and emotional immediacy. A comment celebrating revenge requires less explanation than a discussion of due process, prison safety or the state’s obligation to protect people in custody.
Watson’s own language also encouraged the vigilante interpretation. He framed himself as a prisoner with little to lose who could act where others could not.
Yet celebrating his actions requires overlooking three facts.
He was already imprisoned for killing Garrett Benson. He decided for himself who deserved death and carried out the punishment without legal authority. And his attacks occurred inside a facility where uncontrolled violence endangers prisoners and staff beyond the immediate targets.
Conviction Does Not Erase Legal Protection
Bobb and De Luis-Conti had been convicted of grave crimes. Nothing in an accurate account requires minimizing those offenses.
At the same time, imprisonment does not place a person outside the law.
Courts determine sentences through established procedures. Prison officials are responsible for carrying those sentences out. Other inmates do not acquire the authority to add corporal punishment or death.
That principle protects more than unpopular prisoners.
If prison violence is accepted whenever the victim belongs to a hated category, the same reasoning can spread to people who were wrongly convicted, misidentified, accused through rumor or targeted for personal reasons disguised as moral punishment.
Institutional control also protects correctional officers and other prisoners. A weapon used against one person can be used against anyone. A culture that celebrates unauthorized violence makes already dangerous facilities harder to manage.
Rejecting vigilantism is not the same as expressing sympathy for the underlying offenses. It is a defense of accountable punishment rather than private execution.
The Unresolved Institutional Questions
Watson’s claim that he warned a counselor raised legitimate questions about prison administration.