Monday, December 10, 2012

Statement Analysis: John Carter on Katlyn Markham's disappearance


 In the disappearance of Katelyn Markham, John Carter is indicated for deception. Here is an interview he gave on radio 6 days after calling 911.  

The interviewers do a very poor job interviewing him as they are more prone to making statements and asking compound questions instead of seeking information, yet analysis of his answers show deception.  This is consistent with other statements he has made. 

Statement Analysis shows that he is withholding information about what happened the night he left Katelyn Markham's apartment.  Please see prior analysis. 

Statement Analysis is in bold type. 


JC:  Um... Not - not too good. 
TJ:  John, let me ask you, when was the last time you saw Katelyn?

JC:  Um, I uh, saw her at her house, at uh... on Saturday night.

SS:  Last Saturday night.  And you thought nothing of it, it's like, "Love ya, see ya later."  What was the last communication you had with her?  Did you speak to her on the phone?

Compound questions should be avoided.  

JC:  No, I, uh... she had sent me a, a few text messages after I left her house.

Leaving of her house is very sensitive to the subject. 

TJ:  Mmm.

JC:  Um, just, just a few things about, uh, some things she wanted me to do for her.  She, she was consistently busy, so I had to help her do a lot of things.

Here we have the explanation as to why he did something, upon leaving.  Here is the area of missing information from John Carter that is directly related to the disappearance of Katelyn Markham. 

SS:  And all of a sudden you don't hear from her.  When - at what point did you think, maybe there's a problem?


The interviewer should avoid making assumptions as well as compound questions.  The interviewer is feeding information that is likely untrue.  We should be careful how we word our questions as we may teach the subject how to lie. 

JC:  Um... well uh, after I went home, I sent her a good morning text message.  And then I woke up the next day, and normally she sends me a good morning text message... um, but at - you know, like - she sends me something back saying thank you, and all that stuff, but - um, she didn't, uh, send anything.  But that - that didn't entirely worry me, I just thought maybe she was busy or something, or she just woke up late for work or something.  But then uh... you know, there was just, uh... I sent - she sent me, uh - or then I sent her a few more text messages, no response, and all that stuff, and uh...


Note the pronouns, "I sent, she sent me, or then I sent..."

SS:  And when she didn't show up for work to her job, then, then - then you knew something clearly was going on.


The interviewer does not ask questions, but leads him with information.  This impacts the response.  

JC:  Um, actually I had a feeling something was going on when I, uh, saw her car in the parking lot.  And, and I went up to her room, and her purse and keys were still there.

TJ:  Wow.

SS:  Wow.

TJ:  John, what do you think happened?  Do you suspect foul play?

JC:  I - I really don't know.  Um, I've been asked this question a lot, and I really, I just have no idea.  I, I couldn't tell you.  Um.  I have the strongest, uh, thought that she would not run away. I mean there's no reason for her to go anywhere.  But other than that, I have no idea what could have possibly happened to her.


Note the stutter on the pronoun, "I", one of the most practiced words in the English language. This shows an increase in tension.  Note that he stutters on it twice, indicating anxiety. 
Note that he does not say, "I don't know" but that the "really" don't know; indicating that he does know "really"
He has "no idea" but then says he has the "strongest thought" that she did not run away, making "no idea" untrue.  
Note the sentence:  "I have not idea what could have possibly happened to her" has the additional word "possibly" added.

TJ:  Mm.  It's kinda strange that Katelyn would leave without her keys, right?  Did she leave her cell phone as well?

JC:  Uh, yeah.  She had her cell phone on her, apparently.  Um, to this day I still call it, just hoping that maybe she'll answer at some point in time, or something like that.

SS:  What's really unusual about this too, John, is that the car, keys, that's unusual - but the purse!

JC:  Yeah.

SS:  I don't know any woman who doesn't take their purse with them.  When women go to the bathroom - when women are - wherever they are, they have their purse with them at all times.  For her just to take her cellphone may indicate to me, and possibly the police as well, that there was some foul play here, because certainly she's not going to you know, go somewhere.  Even if she decided, you know, "I want to leave and start another life," usually you're going to take something with you that's personal in nature.


Interviewer's speech allows Carter to simply agree. 

JC:  Yeah.  Exactly.  And the thing is, is um... she had sent me a picture of a picture of her, that her boss took of her from her internship.  I mean she had two jobs and her internship, and went to school full time.  So I mean, she was consistently busy, but that stress made her stronger.  I mean, she loved the fact that she was being so strong, and, and she was proud of herself.  I mean, there was no, there was no anger [rueful laugh], at all, when it came to, to high stress.  Um...


Here is a past tense reference by Carter indicating belief or knowledge that she is dead.  At the time of this interview, she was only missing for 6 days and police had not revealed any details to cause anyone to conclude that she was dead.  Since he claims to the contrary, this is a significant point in his answer that should lead police to ask how he knows she is dead. 

SS:  Right.  John Carter's with us, John Carter the fiance of Katelyn Markham.  Katelyn's been missing from Fairfield now for, um, it'll be a week tomorrow. And you're encouraged if you have any information to call Fairfield police as they continue to investigate this. I believe from what I understand, she was going to graduate from the Art Institute of Cincinnati sometime in the next 30 days, 45 days... September... she works at David's Bridal, so she has the two jobs there... You guys were planning to move out of state, in the late fall, early winter of this year and get married, right?

JC:  Well, uh, we weren't going to get married until way after we moved out.  Um, I mean, I wasn't rushing anything. I mean neither one of us wanted to.  The original plan was to actually leave in October, but then my brother was coming into town, so she and I suggested to just wait until after he came in town, so we decided to postpone it till November; and she could have easily have said, "I just don't want to go," and I would have been totally fine with that. There was no - you know, we weren't forcing it.  You know, we weren't trying to do anything we couldn't handle.

Note critical points:


"We weren't going to get married" instead of "We're not going...." then we have a change from the important pronoun, "we" to the "I" about himself:  This is an indicator of stress and tension.  He mentions that he wasn't rushing anything, dropping the "we" that existed about not getting married. 

Note "we" weren't getting married also changes to "she and I"

Then he said that this was only "suggested" and that "she could have easily have said" giving a strong indication that they had a disagreement about getting married.  This is another indicator (see previous analysis) that the night that Katelyn was last with him, there was a blow out between them.  Here he tells us what she "could have" said and he would have been "totally fine" with it.  He does not say that this is what she said. 

This is a clear point of contention.  

Note that he reports what they "weren't" trying to do.  Most people report what they try to do.  This is very important information related to Katelyn's disappearance. 


TJ:  John, how long have you guys, uh, been together?

JC:  We've been together for six years.

TJ:  Oh, that's a solid relationship right there.


Volatile relationships do go on for years.  It is foolish for interviewers to make such statements, rather than ask questions.  Training needed. 

SS:  How - where did you guys meet?

JC:  Actually, my sister had met her on MySpace when I was in high school and she was in high school, and she called me and told me, "Hey, I met this pretty girl, you want to come over and meet her too?"  And I was like, "Oh sure, yeah, why not," and I wound up meeting her, and you know, I guess... as they say, the rest is history.

SS:  Yeah, and you've been an item ever since.  What are the reaction, because they've been rather tight-tipped, of her family... How close is she to her mom and/or dad, if either one - 


If there was domestic violence, this interviewer is not going to ask, instead concluding how "solid" an "item" they were.  Unfortunate. 

JC:  She - she was very close to both of them.  Um, she really, like, she really loved her parents very much and, um, they loved her back.  I mean, they, they - actually she's adopted, and they had adopted her, and I mean... they, they really loved her.  Very mu -  Er, they still love her.  Of course.


John Carter shows knowledge that Katelyn is dead, and even changes his language as he became aware of what he has just said. 

TJ:  John, Katelyn sounds like such a nice girl.  Did she have any enemies, uh, ex-boyfriends, anything like that?

JC:  No.  I mean, she had an ex-boyfriend, but I mean, he was - you know, six years.  We've been together for six years.  I mean, that's - that's high school stuff, you know?

SS:  Yeah, okay.  And, and as far as police go, I'm sure they have talked to you extensively, as other family members have.  No suspects have been - they're obviously still treating this as a missing person - do they have any suspicions one way or the other if it's foul play, or she left on her own volition?

JC:  Um, well I, uh I mean the news has really been getting - the media has been getting more information than I'm getting, um, uh.  And they, they, I've heard that they were saying that, the police were saying that it was foul play, and then I'm hearing that's there's no signs of foul play.  So I really, I, I don't know.  I mean, I was the one who called in the police, and I was the one who was the first one to realize that she was gone.  Um, and I was in her room, I, I saw - like, I immediately went to her room when I was thinking, you know, "Oh my God, she might be gone" - and it didn't - it looked like she literally had disappeared.  Like just, like nothing seemed messed up, nothing seemed awry, really, and -


Please note, that even without the understanding of Statement Analysis, that John Carter has a reason, only 6 days from her "disappearance" to justify himself.  
Note that he did not "call police" but "call in police", as in to a situation.  Here he attempts to portray himself as not having "done it", yet he never says he did not cause her disappearance. 
Note "immediately" as an additional and unnecessary word.  
Note his change of sentence:  he begins with the negative, "it didn't", but stops himself and reports in the positive.  
*He did not say "she disappeared" but only that it "looked like she literally had disappeared"; as there is a difference.  Lying causes internal stress and it is avoided whenever possible. 

SS:  Where was she the last time - I know you said you had texted each other, you had texted her, there was no response, you had talked the night before.  Um, the last time anyone saw her physically was when?

JC:  Uh, I saw her at 11 o'clock.  Or between 11 and and 11:30 last night.  Or, last night, I'm sorry - um, Saturday night.


We note the appearance of "I'm sorry" in any form as a possible indicator of guilt.  That it should come in to his language, given the deception, may be due to the internal guilt he feels over what happened, or possibly his deception to the interviewer.  

SS:  Last Saturday night.

JC:  Yeah.

TJ:  That Saturday night, did she seem distracted, did she seem like something was on her mind?

JC:  Not at all.

TJ:  Nothing?

JC:  Totally normal night.


When someone uses the word "normal" it is a strong indicator that the night was anything but normal. 

SS:  And you had plans, and said "Hey, I'll see you tomorrow, or I'll talk to you tomorrow, hey, good luck at work tomorrow..."

JC:  Absolutely.

SS:  That whole thing, and sometime in that point ... I know, and we'll play the 911 call here in a little bit here, you had mentioned that I think the Sacred Heart festival's going on up the street, and you seemed to indicate to the dispatcher that maybe something was go - I mean, had she planned to go to that festival, or - ?

JC:  No, she wasn't planning on going.  I mean, she was pretty much exhausted every night.  We had actually went Friday, and she didn't even really want to go Friday, but I, uh, I just was like, "Let's just go ahead and go, because it's not going to be every day that we have this festival"... and we used, we went every year, I mean since we first started dating we've gone every year.  And I don't know, I just kinda... the only reason why I brought it up when I called the police was because, I mean, there's so many different kinds of people there, it's not just you know, Catholics and things like that, it's all walks of life that go to that festival.


Recall that he has "no idea" yet he did have an idea, which he defends, when he attempted to blame someone attending the festival.  This debunks the statement of having "no idea" what happened to Katelyn. 

SS:  Well, if you're from Cincinnati, you know you go to church festivals, even if you're not Catholic - it's just what people, what Cincinnatians do in the summer... and yeah, I think that's probably true to a degree... you just, when you have a large group of people, you certainly - you know, it draws a mixed crowd.

JC:  Yeah.  It's gotta be one out of however many people is a bad person, you know?

TJ:  John, you think something happened with that festival, huh.  That maybe someone saw her at the festival?

JC:  Honestly, at the time I did, but maybe it had nothing to do with it.  Maybe this person had been monitor-... or, or, you know - if - if she was taken, maybe this person had been watching for a long time.  I mean, they had to have known that she was going to be home alone, they had to have known, um, you know, when she was going to be home alone, and when I was going to leave, or, or what have you.  

Note "honestly" as a signal of deception.
Note "this" shows closeness
Note "person" is gender neutral.  Would he think a female did this?  Not likely.  Using gender neutral is more likely related to wanting to hide the gender of the guilty.  
Note "if she was taken" contradicts the "no idea"
Note that having "no idea" is also debunked by the repetitive (sensitive) "they had to have known"

SS:  Yeah.  And you said you last saw her maybe 11, 11:30 Saturday and she was tired, she's going to go to bed -

JC:  Mmhmm.

SS:  Did the bed look like it was slept in at all, when you went over?

JC:  Yeah, I mean - she doesn't typically make her bed, so it was just - it always looks a little messy.

SS:  Eh, who does.  Yeah.  So she may have - so, all right, something obviously happened - if she had slept in the bed - something - someone may have knocked at the door, she may have gone somewhere, um -

JC:  Yeah.

SS:  And this is just such an interesting - obviously in a sad way, but very interesting circumstances in how, how she disappeared.  Uh, Fairfield police, how've they been working with?

JC:  Um, the Fairfield police have actually been pretty good.  Um, they, they've - they're getting less sleep than I am, I feel like.  Um, they, you know, I - they called me at 10 o'clock last night to come in and help them out, and I'm just, I'm willing to do whatever I can, and give them whatever I can to, to help them.  Um, they've been really great, they've brought in other investigators, um, federal investigators even, and it's just been - they've been really helpful.


Note complimentary attitude towards Fairfield police uses the word "actually", indicating that he is comparing them to something else. 
Note the unnecessary "I'm willing to do whatever I can" 
Note "whatever I "can" indicates limitation. He is limited in what he can give them. 

TJ:  John, have they questioned anybody else besides yourself?

JC:  Yeah.  Um, they've actually called all known associates, um, as far as I know, um.  I have a lot of support from  friends and family, and they've been coming over and telling me that the police called them, the police called them, and so on - 


Note that he has a lot of support from "friends and family" but not from the police, who are "losing sleep"
This is an uncomfortable part for him, as he is admitting here that police have been asking questions about his background, personality, etc, of his friends, who are calling him and telling him that the police are asking about him.  This is completely lost on the interviewer who could have asked him what they were asking his friends but did not: 

SS:  Right.  And they're talking to neighbors, because you said she lives in an apartment, so everyone there has been questioned when they did their canvassing through the neighborhood too, and - and as far that concern - they have not ruled - they haven't basically ruled anyone out as a suspect, I'm assuming.

JC:  No, not at all.

SS:  Now did they tell you that while you are not being considered as a suspect, you haven't been ruled out?  Because you were the last one to see her.

JC:  Yeah.  I mean yeah, yeah.  I mean, and I - I - when I - even before - like, as soon as I - I don't know. As soon as the police were involved, I knew that I was going to be considered a suspect.  It's always going to be, you know, the, the last person to see her, and/or the closest person to her.  So, I mean, I'm the one who sees her every day.  I mean, you can't just rule out anybody, you know?


Note the stuttering "I" indicating tension and anxiety.  Note the stutters are close together on the one word in which a non-stuttering person should have no trouble with, since it is used by us, millions of times.  

SS:  Right.  On that note, John, because we've seen cases like this, um - do you have an attorney?  Did you decide to get a lawyer?

JC:  Um, I don't need a lawyer, because I did not do anything. 


Please note that this is a very sensitive statement.  Here, he explains why he does not need a lawyer, but is not able to bring himself to say he did not "do it"; only that he did not do "anything", which is vague. 

TJ:  Good for you, John.  Good for you.  You've got nothing to hide, right?

SS:  And I'm not insin- John, I'm not, believe me, I'm not insinuating you are, but I'm just saying that -

In spite of the two hosts tripping on each other, here is another place for Carter to say "I didn't cause Katelyn's disappearance", using her name, his own pronoun, "I" (without stuttering) and specifically address her disappearance. 

JC:  Oh, no no no, I - and I understand that.  But I had a lot of family members come to me and say, "You should get a lawyer, you should get a lawyer," and I'm like, "No, there's no reason for me to, I didn't do anything."


Note the repeated "no", as well as the "I", stuttered with the word "and"
Note that he only repeats his unreliable denial; quoting himself with "I'm like..." rather than issuing a reliable denial. 

TJ:  Good for you.  John, I appreciate your courage doing something like that and coming on these airwaves, I mean, it's, uh -

JC:  Yeah, I'm just trying to do everything I can to make sure that Katelyn's name gets out there, and that more people hear her name and see her face, and so on.


Note the lack of stuttering "I"

SS:  Sure.  We're as you know a pretty big radio station, we've got a lot of people listening.  And John, I just want to pass out, to pass on the, you know, if you were at the festival last weekend, if you're in Fairfield or in that neighborhood, go online to our website at 700WLW.com, take a good look at Katelyn's picture, maybe you saw her, maybe you - you know, help police, help them fill in the blanks.  And if you know anything whatsoever, just give Fairfield police a call, and I'm sure that information will come in a lot, uh, very helpful.

TJ:  And John, I'd keep trying that cellphone.

JC:  Yeah, I, I, I will.  And I also wanted to announce that um, tonight at uh, 7 pm we're going to do a vigil, um, and, and, uh, and it's going to be at Fairfield West Baptist Church on Muskopf Road, and anyone's invited.  At 7 pm.


The stuttering "I" is repeated and it is heavy, indicating acute anxiety for Carter. 

SS:  Okay, Fairfield Baptist.  Got it.  We'll pass that on too.  Hey John, I really appreciate you coming on, though it's difficult under these circumstances and our thoughts and prayers are with you.  If you need anything or need to get some info out, I know you've got Pauly's number here, our producer, and we'll get you right on, buddy. 

JC:  Yeah, thank you very much.

SS:  Give our best to the family too.  We're thinking of them.

TJ:  Thanks John.

JC:  Thank you.

SS:  All right, there you go.

TJ:  It's tough.

SS:  All right, you heard John Carter the fiance of Katelyn Markham, she's been missing for 6 days now out of Fairfield. And as far as what may have happened, there's a lot of speculation out there - you know, when a woman disappears, oranyone disappears, but a woman - she leaves behind her keys, she leaves behind her purse - 

TJ:  That's foul play right there.

SS:  The only thing she had with her was her cellphone and she's not answering that right now, and simply walks away or disappears from a life that everyone around her seemed - uh, where she seemed to be happy, comfortable, and very pragmatic - clearly something's going on here that doesn't add up to someone maybe just leaving; or, maybe it does.

38 comments:

reversechapter said...

Thank you!

reversechapter said...

FYI: The interviewer's assumption that John called her workplace is interesting outside of Statement Analysis. He never checked with her workplace. He waited until late Sunday between 7PM and 8PM and drove to her home instead. He went inside by himself first, then went inside a second time after gathering up friends, calling people, etc., just before calling "911" at 8PM. In another interview he says both that he was worried when he saw her car at home, because she should have been at work at that time (she never called or showed for work on Sunday, of course); then he also indicates fear because he says she should have been at home but seems to have disappeared.

Seamus O Riley said...

You're welcome.

Remember, this is not Criminal Analysis, but Statement Analysis, so the background information should not be considered in the initial statement analysis.
Later, while writing an article on the complete case, it should be included.

I did only a light scan of the text; not in depth. I have covered this before and found deception in his words and indication that the 911 call was placed by a guilty caller.

The subject is dead; the statement is alive' is a saying applicable to doing the analysis.

For example, if someone deprives his wife of her status, the analysis says, 'not married', even though the record shows that the subject is married. We are viewing the statement, at a moment in time, when the marriage is not good (deprived status), making it so very important that we do not bend this rule.

Peter

Ivy said...

"JC: Yeah. Exactly. And the thing is, is um... she had sent me a picture of a picture of her, that her boss took of her from her internship. I mean she had two jobs and her internship, and went to school full time. So I mean, she was consistently busy, but that stress made her stronger. I mean, she loved the fact that she was being so strong, and, and she was proud of herself. I mean, there was no, there was no anger [rueful laugh], at all, when it came to, to high stress. Um..."

This statement jumped out at me. 1) random statement about her texting a picture of a picture -- I've read his other statements about this like her boss was a photographer or something -- 2) but segueing from the picture into her 2 jobs and school and internship, shows you what is on his mind, 3) repeating she was "high stress" consistently busy (which before he says potentially disparagingly as another commenter pointed out and I agree, there is another statement about her being exhausted all the time, too exhausted to go out, etc. that also sounds the same way -- it's a complaint, not just a description) that he was always helping her out with stuff (to me this also smacks of self aggrandizement, and also "explaining" -- we know there is this weird thing about him burning her documents (!) -- this is the stuff he was helping her out with 4)To me this "she loved the fact that she was being so strong, she was proud of herself" also seems like disparagement (and also past tense) 4) the jump to the negative statement that there was no anger from the stress -- stood out to me most of all. She was really busy, and I had to help her all the time, she was too exhausted to go out, she was highly stressed, but that wasn't (laugh) a source of anger or anything. I bet it wasn't. Anger from her or him? I recall reading a comment or something on this site reportedly from one of their acquaintances who said John Carter was a bit of a slacker and that Katelyn was fed up with that. That was in the back of my mind reading this (sorry, not purist in my analysis)

I also thought it was peculiar of him to say he wasn't forcing her/rushing, etc. with regard to marriage. I mean, that is a weird thing to clarify/emphasize. Imagine, you move up your wedding date because of travel conflict etc. Ok. That happens. Would you feel the need to tell people, no one was forcing anyone to get married, etc. Saying that basically introduces a problem you wouldn't assume was there hearing the information. He thinks when people hear that they postponed their wedding they will think that someone was feeling/being rushed into marriage and that was the reason for the postponement. To me this signals that either that was the real reason for the postponement or he was super insecure about the upcoming marriage. This statement that the wedding wasn't postponed because of concerns about rushing is similar to him saying there was no anger from the stress she was under, except it's worse.

He also seems to be having a hard time talking about the texts that were sent -- a lot of stuttering, interrupted thoughts about her send--, I mean, he send-, etc.

I also wanted to point out that he said multiple times he didn't need a lawyer, but he didn't say he didn't have or hire a lawyer.

selkie said...

Interesting interview transrcripts at bottom of the page of 2 interviews with australian djs who hoaxed the hospital where the duchess of Cambridge was being treated fro hyperemesis of pregnancy and probably contributed to the suicide by the nurse who took the call


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245727/Australias-2Day-FM-DJ-Mel-Greigs-tears-interview-Michael-Christian-suicide-nurse-Kate-hospital.html

reversechapter said...

Ivy: Good observations. The final ping of Katelyn's phone was from a tower near her town home. However, that tower would also have been pinged by HIS phone if he was traveling to the location to which he was headed to burn her "documents." So remembering the text story is probably difficult if you are the one texting both sides of the conversation, and the conversation was fabricated. The "picture of a picture" might have been sent in part because a picture of Katelyn (alive) was not possible if something had already happened to her. That means any relationship to the boss might not be as meaningful as the simple availability of that picture either in her room or on her phone, digitally.

The fire pit burning of Katelyn's "big old bag" of paperwork - if you assume someone saves 3-5 years of important stuff, then he was burning what she'd accumulated from age 0 until she was a teenage girl - happened the same night as the big storm that caused a stage collapse in Indiana at a Sugarland concert, which killed people (seven, I think). He was leaving her home and burning her documents as that storm moved across West Ohio. There are mutual friends who are in effect supporting him by remaining silent about the truth related to "the burning," as we call it.

In another interview, John goes a step further and mentions having to do "chores" for Katelyn, like vacuuming, for instance. He went into the town home alone first, then left to gather a few friends as he called family members. He is calling "911" at 8PM (7:59PM) as he's returning to the home for the second time. You can tell he's driving if you listen to the recording; you wonder initially "Where is he going if he's at her town home already?"

He never called her workplace to check and see if she arrived at work, but waited instead until about an hour before she was due home, then drove there. He said that seeing her car caused him to worry, because she should have been at work (something he never went through the motion of checking); unfortunately, he also claimed to be concerned that she was not home at the same time. He does both practically in the same breath in another interview.

The statement Peter analyzed here is really one of the LEAST incriminating in my opinion, but it's pretty long. Finally, I agree with your assessment of the word "anger," which struck me as being the most chilling thing about this interview. If Katelyn decided to just leave her life behind, I don't see why anyone would use that word to describe a potential motivation. Besides, the final night everything was "totally normal."

Skeptical said...

I have a question about the word normal. I have noticed that when I use the word it is usually a part of hindsight. I am more likely to say "everything seemed normal" or "appeared normal". This means that I didn't pick up on something in a situation, such as a facial expression, a turn of phrase, an emotional state, etc. In my world, this is my way of saying I missed something. If I were to say everything "was" normal, it would be an attempt to move on. This is a subtle shift and may be a matter of semantics, but in my thinking there is a difference in meaning.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
I did only A LIGHT SCAN OF THE TEXT...
...We are viewing the statement, at A MOMENT IN TIME,

Peter,
Is there "embedded content analysis" taking place?


rob said...

Ivy, I'm with you on thinking about the friends comment on him being a slacker. My first thought was this is where the 'anger' came from, like an argument where she is telling him,'I'm tired of working my ass off, while you are just vacuuming'. Maybe she was dumping him, and he didn't want to be dumped.
He brought up the anger and all the things he does for her, when really they were not a part of this interview.

C5H11ONO said...

John Carter: "I mean, and I - I - when I - even before - like, as soon as I - I don't know."

He did a ton of self sencoring here. Each time he was going to say something, he realized that it was not good to say that, so he tried a differnt way, and kept catching himself over and over again. It's hard to lie.

C5H11ONO said...

Ooops: Spelling error: Censoring.

john said...

Peter this is an extract from your analysis of the 911.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/kate-markham-john-carters-911-call.html

911 Dispatcher: Okay, where'd you see her last?

J: Um, I saw her at like 12 o' clock last night. She stays in a house by herself, um, so, she - I'm just, I'm really nervous. Her car's still there, her purse is still -

Skip forward to this interveiew and he says.

"SS: Where was she the last time - I know you said you had texted each other, you had texted her, there was no response, you had talked the night before. Um, the last time anyone saw her physically was when?

JC: Uh, I saw her at 11 o'clock. Or between 11 and and 11:30 last night. Or, last night, I'm sorry - um, Saturday night.

This is just one inconsistancy..

Rob B. said...

I think you were too hard on the talk show hosts. I also believe Scott Sloan was trolling him.

That said, the obscure nature of the picture has always bothered me. He never elaborates upon it, but makes mention of its origin.

If you told me this kid was a Dexter fan, I'd believe it. There's a lot of scenario building that promotes foul play, without alluding the nature of it. If I recall, didn't the 911 call suggest Mexicans? Also, there are a lot of erroneous tid-bits up for grabs like the specificity on the photo, a paper burning.

His use of past tense does indicate what normally someone in denial wouldn't be doing. He's accepted foul play as truth, even in the 911 call.

It's pretty clear if you don't have anything emotional invested in this case.

Where is this guy today?

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hobnob said...

off topic BBM


SYCAMORE, Ill. – A former Washington state policeman convicted of kidnapping and murdering a young Illinois girl more than a half century ago was sentenced Monday to life in prison.

Jack McCullough, 73, was convicted in September in one of the oldest unsolved crimes in American history to make it to trial. Judge James Hallock had the option of sentencing McCullough from 14 years in prison to life.

The sentencing took place in Sycamore, the small community where 7-year-old Maria Ridulph was abducted and killed in December of 1957. Like McCullough's trial, it was expected to be emotional for members of both Ridulph's family and McCullough's family, as well as 63-year-old Kathy Chapman, a childhood friend of Ridulph's who was with her until moments before she was abducted. Chapman testified at the trial.

Prosecutors contended that on Dec. 3, 1957, a 17-year-old McCullough, known then as John Tessier, approached Ridulph and Chapman in front of Ridulph's house and played with them for a while. When Chapman ran home to get her mittens, prosecutors said, McCullough dragged Maria into an alley and choked her with a wire, then stabbed her in the throat and chest. Then, they said, he loaded her body into his car and drove more than 100 miles to where he disposed of her body in a wooded area.

Ridulph's disappearance drew national attention during a massive, months-long search before her body was found the following April. Reportedly, President Dwight Eisenhower and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover asked for regular updates on the case.

McCullough was one of more than 100 people who were briefly suspects, but he had what seemed like a solid alibi. On the day the girl vanished, he told investigators, he'd been traveling to Chicago for a medical exam before joining the Air Force.

McCullough eventually settled in Seattle, working as a Washington state police officer.

Ultimately, members of his own family helped convict him. During the trial, Janet Tessier, McCullough's half-sister, described McCullough's mother making incriminating comments about McCullough on her deathbed in 1994. The mother acknowledged that she had lied to police when she supported McCullough's alibi.

Once a new investigation was launched, authorities went to Chapman, Ridulph's childhood friend, and showed her an old photograph if McCullough. A half century later, she identified him as the teenager who came up to them that snowy day and introduced himself as "Johnny."

McCullough did not testify.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/10/former-washington-state-policeman-gets-life-sentence-for-killing-girl-in-157/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Eg3qyvO8

Ivy said...

The picture thing is weird. I have wondered like you if he wanted so badly to establish her as alive at that point, so he texted himself this picture of a picture and then realized that it obviously didn't look like a picture taken at the time. But that seems Like such a stupid thing to do, it is hard to believe anyone would do this. But it also seems extremely weird for her to send a picture of this picture (he had already seen since he knew the boss took it? That is presuming a lot but that would be what I would think) A lot of strang reacts in this case.

Frannie said...

Interesting study for SA students. This is a transcript of the interview with the Austrailian DJs that pranked called the hospital the Princess Kate was at.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/10/aussie-dj-s-in-tragic-suicide-prank-full-text-of-their-emotional-first-interview.html

reversechapter said...

Nancy Grace asked him why she didn't just show him the picture, and he said it was upstairs in her bedroom. He said he hadn't seen it in person even though he'd just left the town home. Most images are also kept in digital form today; the police should have checked that. The "pic of pic" was the final text message, only there was no text; just the picture of the picture. They'd also just discussed the burning of her documents, and the texts prior to the final one were ALSO related to the document burning. She was going to bed, but instead of sleeping she apparently decided to talk about stuff they'd just discussed at home.

Also, there was no "Good night," and no text from John to Katelyn saying "Wow, nice picture. You look beautiful." Nothing. The pic was the last piece of communication. How many women would send a professional-quality portrait of herself to her boyfriend and be okay without any compliment or acknowledgment of any kind in return? He just assumed that the pic was her way of saying "good night" if you believe his story. How does that make any sense at all?

He received the pic of pic seven minutes after her phone's final ping ("Hit 'SEND,' destroy phone"). So if he'd responded to the last text, he would likely not have received another message from her in return. Most people would probably have taken action to find out what happened to their loved one at that point, by calling a land line or driving back over there. His story has her getting taken within a certain time frame while he's OBVIOUSLY not there (at 12:52AM he receives the final text), but even with the sudden break in communication I mention above, he doesn't check on her until after 7PM the next day.

One very organized woman has put together all of the information we've accumulated at this link if anyone is interested in more info:

http://kmdce.livejournal.com/

Rob: In answer to your question about where he is today, he is living his "totally normal" life.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
EVANSDALE, IOWA — Police in Iowa say an autopsy has confirmed that two bodies found last week in a wildlife area are those of two young cousins who have been missing since last summer.

Evansdale Police Chief Kent Smock says he received confirmation Monday from the Iowa State Medical Examiner's Office that the bodies were Elizabeth Collins and Lyric Cook, who had been missing since July 13. The full autopsy hasn't been released to police.


Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/12/10/2719616/autopsies-confirm-bodies-are-missing.html#wgt=rcntnews#storylink=cpy

Anonymous said...

The ability to discern truth is a primal survival instinct.

Anonymous said...

Did you underline his comment, "I understand that" (when the interviewers were basically pointing out that his story is suspect) as an embedded admission? I'm very new to learning about statement analysis, but it seems like he was saying, "yeah, it's understandable that you suspect me."

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
I thought he was in jail

S + K Mum said...

How long has Katelyn been missing?

@ Reversechapter,
Thanks for sharing so much info, can I ask: Where do his friends (the ones who suspect him) think he has left her? I imagine people talk and put their own theories forward. (or maybe for the ones that are good at SA - is there anything in what he says that gives this away?). There is so much in his statements that are odd to say the least :(

I hope Katelyns friends and family see closure and justice soon.

john said...

OT>>

Scammer says he kidnapped Dylan Redwine.

FARMINGTON — A man said he kidnapped Dylan Redwine and is asking for money for the 13-year-old's release.
But the man is lying.
"This is a scam," La Plata County Sheriff's Office Capt. Jim Ezzell said in a statement. "Do not send him money."
Dylan has been missing since Nov. 19. Dylan's father, Mark Redwine, said he last saw his son early that morning.
A man who identified himself as Abass Gadafi is claiming on Facebook to be a "boss of a kidnapper gang," and a new Bayfield, Colo. resident. He said he is holding Dylan captive and will release him for $5,000 and he will provide a picture of him for $1,000.
The money is to be sent to an account in the United Kingdom via Western Union, the sheriff's office said.
The sheriff's office is asking anyone who is contacted by the person to call law enforcement at 970-385-2900.
Dylan grew up in Bayfield and moved to Colorado Springs this summer. He returned to the area Nov. 18 to visit his father for Thanksgiving.
Mark Redwine said Dylan vanished the next morning. The father lives in Vallecito, northeast of Durango.
The sheriff's office has said they believe foul play is the reason for Dylan's disappearance.
In the last three weeks investigators and officers from multiple agencies and hundreds of volunteers have scoured forested areas, ditches alongside nearby roads and the bottoms and shores of lakes and reservoirs in southwest Colorado in search of Dylan.
About 250 hikers participated in
a community search on Saturday.
The hikers recovered 10 items that investigators are evaluating as possible clues to Dylan's disappearance.

http://www.daily-times.com/ci_22165670/scammer-says-he-kidnapped-dylan-redwine

reversechapter said...

S & K: I think we're still at the point where we're waiting for one of his friends to face reality. Guesses about where she could be vary, but somewhere near his fathers home, which is in the country in West Ohio; if he had help she could be in Indiana; or she could unfortunately be in a Cincinnati area dump in Rumpke.

The dump was not searched until three days after the disappearance. Katelyn's home was not secured until three days after the disappearance. Peter's analysis seems to support a fear of mine. Tiresome personal questions and interviews with friends aside, I wonder if the Fairfield police saw any of these red flags in the beginning, and if they really did an interrogation rather than a simple interview. If the police miss these signs, don't they miss a fast-closing window of opportunity to get the truth from the person who is guilty?

Now I'm hearing how complete silence for months or twenty years is appropriate in missing persons cases - this is the first time I've done anything like this - and how we have to let the police operate without being questioned. My opinion after more than a year is that I don't think most police departments in this country are looking for missing persons in the most productive way. I could be wrong, of course.

S & K Mum said...

Thank you reversechapter.

Sadly it does appear that enough isn't done in missing person cases,which is very sad indeed. Especially when it seems so clear who the guilty parties are. It is heartbreaking for the family and friends of those who are missing.

Rants-a-lot said...

This total little creep is so full of "um's", "uh's", other verbal time-to think it up-pauses, when all I can hear is a spoiled little opportunist who cared not for the now gone fiancee, who uses women, who is cold, heartless. And very capable of any violence necessary. And, on to the next sucker who can support him. Until she balks.

Anonymous said...

I have been following this case from the beginning. I would like the Fairfield Police Dept. to answer this question: Why did you not question everyone close to Katelyn? There are at least two people who had contact with Katelyn right before she went missing, her friend Krista and her Uncle, Don Moore. They both stated that they were not questioned by police. Also, it's so frustrating that after all of John Carter's inconsistencies that the police cannot do something more.

Anonymous said...

I wondeer why the news reporters don't furthur question the fiancé, John Carter, when he makes ridiculous statements. They don't even ask him to elaborate....even during the Nancy Grace interview. The police and journalists seem to be giving him special treatment. At this point I doubt if the Fairfield Police Department even pay attention to statement analysis. They claim they have no clues....HELLO. Did they even do any interrogating? What a sad excuse of a police department!

Anonymous said...

Most innocent people would be shouting their innocence from a rooftop...and publically demanding that the police clear their name. Just because he has a new girlfriend doesn't mean he can't try to help by clearing his name and reliving the last hours with Katelyn...to try to help find her. Why don't her family ...her father Dave, demand his cooperation? It's like everyone is just Ok...life goes on...maybe the police will find something out...I wouldn't count on it now. John gets a free pass.

Sue said...

Could the authorities give Katelyn one last shot? If Fairfield Police Department won't bring John in for interrogation and a polygraph...could the FBI have a shot at it? It's worth a try...not too late! The family would be so grateful for this last ditch effort...since no one is talking!

Seamus O Riley said...

Some excellent comments: anonymous, please choose a name; you ask a good question.

Police may feel that interviewing others is a waste since they know 'who done it', and may be frustrated feeling that it cannot be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Frustrated said...

I'm anonymous...not used to posting on sites. I agree that police are probably frustrated that this case might not be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...but I'm frustrated too...feeling that if they would use proper interrogation and statement analysis...they could have extracted a confession early on. Could they try again?

Anonymous said...

murdering freak, the only time he doesn't stammer is when he;s talking about when they met cos that;s the only part that;s true. Six years, and then....murder and indifference.

Hope this freak goes down for life.

Anonymous said...

Oh I see, new girlfriend...as if nothing happened. I wonder, is murder the leading cause of death for young women in the US? Obviously he killed her, genocide of women, no big deal...just another missing person. so many murderers walking around! Take care new girlfriend, open your eyes...

Cassidy said...

You people are giving the police and John Carter a bad Rap. John was the one who called in police. He said they've actually been pretty good. John said he was willing to do anything he could to help out and he even went in at 10:00pm a when called. John had the where with all to recognize that she might be gone, even though she should have been at work. Heck, John was even vacuumed her house. I'm sure the police checked for finger prints on the vacuume cleaner, right?

Lets give this guy the benefit of doubt. He was still talking to the media for a couple of weeks after Katelyn was missing. I' m sure he only stopped because there was no more to say.

Anonymous said...

Even though the police may know "who done it", and I think that they do, they may have gained crucial insight and revelations from interviewing last known contacts, that could lead them to further investigation.

I hope iinvestigators have looked further into Katelyn's Facebook and other media communication prior to her missing, to do an analysis to determine if the wordings sound like Katelyn, and not John Carter.

Frustrated said...

It appears that Katelyn's life isn't worth a polygraph, voice analysis that is reviewed by the police, or proper interrogations by police. Even if there is not enough evidence for a conviction in court, isn't it at less worth some effort to obtain some bit of information?

No statements from police regarding a POI, except that no one has been ruled out. (They did rule out Kang).

Sounds like the police might feel they messed up and they'll just stay quiet, and hope this just blows over. Poor Katelyn.