Thursday, April 11, 2013

Katelyn Markham: John Carter's 911 Call Analyzed

The techniques used are from SCAN, Scientific Content Analysis, as developed by Avinoam Sapir.

Katelyn Markham was reported missing last year by her fiance, John Carter.  The following is his 911 call with analysis, followed up by Part 2, his short interview with the local fox news affiliate which is concerning.

There are indications within his statements, including here, that he got into an argument with Katelyn Markham the night of her "disappearance", as we have previously shown in past analysis.  
John Carter: Hi, my name is John Carter, I am calling - I know that you're not supposed to report a missing person after - before 24 hours, but my fiancee is missing, I can't find her anywhere.

1.  "hi"   Please note the that call begins with a greeting. 

 In Analysis, we deal with the unexpected.  

Put yourself in the caller's shoes and presuppose innocence. 

You would be upset, fearful, that your fiance is missing.  Let's note some of the red flags in the call: 

Note the Incomplete Social Introduction.

  Please note that there is no use of her name indicating a problem in the relationship. He says "my fiance" without using her name.  We expect him to be frantic, not casually, meaning that his words will be in a 'hurry' to get to the specific issues.  Instead, it begins with a casual greeting and here he does not give Katelyn's name. 

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 -

Note "um" is a pause to think, indicating sensitivity.  Why the need to pause to think?

"She stays" is present tense.  This is outside the boundary of the question, "where did you last see her?"

Note that "so" is highlighted as very sensitive since it shows a need to explain ("so, since, therefore, because, to...") Yet, he broke his sentence (self censoring) so we do not know what explanation he was going to give.  

"I saw her at like 12' o' clock last night" is only slightly weakened by "like";  investigators should focus upon this time period as it is introduced by the subject along with the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb "saw" connecting him to her at this time.  This time period is likely very important to the story. 

Please note the phrase, "I'm really nervous"; not just "nervous" but "really" nervous.  This is a focus upon the caller himself, not the victim.  Innocent callers focus upon the victim and ask for help, specifically, for the victim. 

The focus is upon the caller, not the victim.  He is the one who is "really nervous" but she is the one alleged to be missing.   Note also the context of being really nervous:   it is around midnight and he reports she is alone.  This is suspicious. 

D: Is there an address?

J: Yeah, 5214 Dorshire Drive.

D: 5214?

J: Dorshire, yes.

D: Okay. And you're out there now?

J: Um, I'm heading out there now, I, like, have been trying to get ahold of her and I decided to go by her house to see if she's okay, and her car's still there - she would be at work right now with her car. Which is why I'm like really freaking out.

1.  Note that the question, "you're there now?" is sensitive to John Carter who did not say "no", but avoiding answering it directly.  
2.  He is only going to "go by her house" and reports being in transit, rather than simply stating he is going there.  
3.  "to see" is the same as "because", indicating the need to tell why he is doing something rather than report what he is doing. 
4.  "and her car's still there";  is he there now, and can see that her car is still there, or is he just "heading out there" now?
5.  "I'm like really freaking out" now uses two words to modify "freaking out", making it very sensitive.  This should question if he really is "freaking out".  Again, note focus upon himself and his wellbeing. 
6. She "would" be at work right now instead of she "should" be at work

D: What's her name?

He had to be asked before he gave her name.  This is indicative of something amiss in the relationship.  Police should seek to learn if they fought this night.   Were there any ongoing disagreements between them?  Were there tough issues in what otherwise may have been a functional relationship?

J: Katelyn Helene Markham.

full name given.  We look to see what he calls her next: 

D: Have you called the hospitals or jails or anything?

J: Um -

D: Where was she at midnight last night when you last saw her?

J: She was at her house. She was going to bed. She wasn't going out to do anything, so she would've been in her bed. And I mean, I've been with her for 6 years - she's not deceiving, you know, she doesn't -

He did not use Katelyn's name here.

1.  She was at her house.  
2.  She was going to bed. 

These are two things he states and it is likely true.  He has brought us to a very critical point of the night she went missing.  He should continue to tell us what was happening, or about to happen.  She was at her house and was going to go to bed when something happened.  Now notice the sequence is broken:

"She wasn't going out to do anything"

What someone tells us in the negative is important information.  Here he has three things to tell us what she was not doing:  not going out "to do anything"; not deceiving, and doesn't, but stops himself or is interrupted. 

He not only tells us that she wasn't going out, but adds "to do anything."  This is critical.

Police need to learn what he does when he goes out at night.  

Did she refuse to go out?
D: Okay, and you guys didn't have an argument or anything?

J: Not at all.

"Not at all" is not the simple "no" and should lead to follow up questions such as, "What did you discuss last night?"

This is a strong indication that they had an argument.  
D: Okay. Is she on any medications or anything?

J: Not at all.

He now repeats his previous denial.  Repetition becomes weaker as it goes on, because it gets easier and easier (less stressful) to use.  She may not have been on any meds but she may have been on "anything", such as marijuana.  Compound questions are always to be avoided. 

D: Has she had thoughts of suicide or anything like that?

J: No. Never. I... never.
Broken sentence means missing information.   He begins with a strong, "no", but weakens it with "never"; but then makes this about himself with "I"

Why would her suicide thoughts be linked to him?

This is concerning. 

He does not use Katelyn's name yet. 

D: All right. And have you talked to her mom or anybody like that, to see if maybe she's out shopping, or - ?

J: I called her father. The only thing that's not there is her cell phone, which is positive, but she's not answering it. So... and the Sacred Heart Festival is going on right up the street, and there's a lot of questionable people there, and it's just kind of. I'm sorry.

The question is answered, but then he goes beyond the question to talk about the Festival, casting suspicion towards those at it. 

Note "I'm sorry" is often found in the language of the guilty, no matter what its usage is.  See Casey Anthony.  It is a red flag for possible guilt.  

 We look to see if the words "I'm sorry" enter the vocabulary of the caller for any reason as it is a red flag.  

He has not used her name yet. 

D: Okay, well, we'll go ahead and have somebody meet you there. What kind of vehicle are you going to be in?

J: A 2008 Ford Docus. It's red.

D: Okay, we'll have somebody come out and speak with you, okay?

J: Okay, thank you.

D: Mmmhmm. Bye.

J: Okay. Bye.

He did not use her name except to give the full, formal name.  This, itself should be considered distancing language.  Why would he distance himself from his fiance?
It is concerning. 

Statement Analysis has indicated that John Carter is withholding critical information about the disappearance of Kate Markham, his fiance.  There has been very little in the news. 


Anonymous said...

He states he is not at the house yet, but states her cell phone is there! How does he know her phone is there if he is not there yet?

Anonymous said...

I meant to say, he says her cell phone is "not there". How does he know this if he is heading there now and was going to drive by to see if her car is there?

Anonymous said...

I asked the same thing. Also why was he freaked out that her car was there? If I am looking for someone I'd be relieved to see their car and assume they're home. I guess he had already been there prior to the 911 call. Surely if he tried to say he hadn't been the detectives would have realized this. I believe he killed her but not based on the above analysis. I think it's junk science at best. I hope they catch the coward and monster responsible for this soon, be it JC or another.

Joeg Voll said...

I truly thought JC was guilty at one point. The more I look into it the less sure I become. I've noticed those who talk openly about his guilt don't have any facts just emotionally tainted opinions and generic stats. The above pseudo-analysis is just one example of the junk they use to back up their positions. I'm not saying JC is innocent but I can no longer, in good conscience, accuse him. It seems to me he is damned if does and damned if he doesn't. I have yet to find a source of information on the case that isnt skewed one way or the other. That isnt fair and it's unfortunate. I can only hope that those in LE, that are investigating this case, are practicing controlled silence for a reason and not because they are stumped. Little to no information has been released by LE or the family. Some have said the families silence is at the request of LE. I know the case is in very capable hands. I hope the truth comes out soon so the families and loved ones get the closure they deserve. Until then I will reserve judgement and I believe those directly impacted by this tradgedy would be better served if others did as well. God Bless KM, Her Family&Loved Ones.

Gregory J. Joseph said...

@joeg voll: I agree with you 110%. I too, at one time thought john carter did it. But now I'm not all that certain. It seems to me that most have forgotten the old saying "innocent until proven guilty". People are one extreme or the other.There doesn't appear to be any middle ground. What happened to waiting for all the facts.The people privy to the facts aren't saying anything about the case or offering their opinions.It seems everyone else is sharing their biased assumptions and everyone knows what one does when they assume.

Anonymous said...

Joeg and Gregory, your both idiots. Its plane to see he did it. Look at his enterviews and his calls.Even a full can see that.

Joeg Voll said...

@Anonymous: You are an illiterate dumbass. If you're over the age of 7 then I truly feel sorry for you. The best advice I can give you is STAY IN SCHOOL!!! Sincerely, JVoll.

Joeg Voll said...

Chelsea Hoffman is a liar and a fraud. Google her for yourself. Then I dare anyone to disagree with her. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. You won't believe how low she will stoop to make sure she always appears to be right and to make sure she always seems to be smarter than everyone else. She has victimized alot of people and she'll take advantage of anyone in any situation. She is nothing but a selfish bully.

Joeg Voll said...

It sickens me to read what Chelsea Hoffman has said, done and continues to say and do. I won't even go into detail because these things are too graphic, hateful, hurtful, and just flat out disgusting. It's almost too perverse to believe it's true. I've done simple research and it's easy to find, very well documented and proven. It's plain to see that it's not just a slip of the tongue, a mistake or misunderstanding. The enormous amount and frequency of this behavior makes it clear that it's more than that. It goes to her character or lack of character rather. It is evident that this is who she really is and what she is all about. The sad part is that she does all this under the guise of claiming to help people. Another sad part is that she makes it harder on others, whom actually do help people in the manner she claims to. She makes them look suspect because she gives their line of work a bad name. Victims and their loved ones don't no whom to trust. They don't know if they truly care or if they're like Hoffman, only out to use their tradgedy for selfish gain. The saddest part by far is that Hoffman could make a difference but doesnt. She has the ability and the audience, she just lacks the heart and soul. I hope one day she changes and developes compassion, selflessness and sympathy. She needs to use her skills and platform to help others and not just herself. One can want and hope for change but one should not hold their breath when it comes to Chelsea Hoffman. Joeg Voll

Unknown said...

He said her purse was still there. He couldn't know that if he hadn't been there yet. No one ever mentions that. The 911 call is from a guilty person for sure, guilty of something.

Habundia said...

Peter didn't conclude guilt from his analysis, he showed the fiance is withholding critical information about the disappearance of Kathelyn.
This update could explain some.

If this case would have been plain and simple it would've been solved a long time ago....would this be the salvation for this case?