Sunday, August 24, 2014

The Case of Katelyn Markham and John Carter

Recently, police have requested tests on the bones believed to be the remains of Katelyn Markham, as it has been 3 years since she went missing.

The answer to what happened to Katelyn lies within John Carter, her former fiancé.  

Statement Analysis has indicated Deception on the part of her fiancé, John Carter, particularly on what took place between them at her house, the night he was last with her.

Here is analysis from his interview and his 911 call which cause me to conclude that John Carter is deceptive about what happened to Katelyn Markham.

I.  His Interview 6 Days after reporting her missing

II.  Statement Analysis of his 911 Call.

I.  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.  Here the interviewer suggests a response for him.  He should have asked, "What happened?" and is why journalists must be trained in legally sound interviewing.  

Regardless, the question is about what it was like when they were together: 
JC:  No, I, uh... she had sent me a, a few text messages after left her house.

1.  Pronouns are never wrong.  Pronouns are instinctive.  We use them millions of times, and since childhood.  

2.  He avoids telling us what was said or what happened between them when he last saw her.  This indicates that the question, itself, is sensitive.  He does not want to tell us what happened when he las saw her.

3.  "Left" Sensitive in Statement Analysis. 

Leaving of her house is very sensitive to the subject.  At this point in his language, he is not home, but is "leaving" her house:  Missing Information.  For the subject, it is not where he went, as accounts move forward in the brain.  Here, he is stalled at the house.  This is why there is missing information precisely here.  Something happened between them before he left her house.  

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.

1.  Things "she wanted me" to do.  Note the lack of unity.  Note the missing pronoun "we" between them. 

2.  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.  These are two sensitivity indicators very close together. 

3.  "She was consistently busy..." is to reference her, missing, in the past tense.  Is she no longer busy?

When one references another in the past tense while missing, police should seek to learn why the subject believes the missing person is dead. 

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..."
Note the greeting text message sent which may be used to appear as if he expected a response, yet he uses the word "normal", a linguistic signal that it was anything but normal.  

Note he reports what he did not "entirely" worry about, in the negative (it "didn't) making it sensitive. 

Pronouns don't lie.  Note "I sent, she sent me, or then I sent..." as a confusion of pronouns.  
Note "no response" has dropped pronoun. 
"All that stuff" shows that there were more things going on in the mind of the subject other than just "no response."  This is a critical time for him; one that he reports in the negative.  

Carter is unconvincing about his own emotions above.  This suggests that his past tense reference, indicating knowledge or belief that she was dead, is accurate. 

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.  It allows the subject to enter the Interviewer's language, and can actually teach a subject how to lie.  This is an important interview and it is bungled due to lack of training. 

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?

The first question was best.  

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.

1.  The one pronoun that we in the English language are most proficient using is the pronoun "I" as we use it millions of times.  We are so good at it that LSI calls the stutter on the pronoun "I", by a non-stuttering person as scale of anxiety. 

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. 

2.  Note that he does not say, "I don't know" but that the "really" don't know; indicating that he does know "really" something. 

3.  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?

Better to ask if anything else was there

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.

Additional words are those which may be removed from a sentence while allowing the sentence to remain being complete.  These are added words in which additional information is gleaned. 

"To this day I call it hoping she'll answer" is the shortest sentence.  Short sentences are best for truth. 

a.  "still" is to show exasperation 
b.  It has only been 6 days since he reported her missing.  The word "just" is used in comparison and reduction.  
c.  "maybe" is reducing commitment to hope
d.  "at some point" 
e.  "in time"
f.  "or something"
g.  "that"

All these words (particularly points c through g) reduce commitment.  It shows that he knows that there is no hope that she will answer.  (See the similarity in the deception of the statement of major league baseball player Ryan Braun.  He shows how adding words in an attempt to persuade have the opposite effect). 

Like the person who says they are "very, very, very, very happily married" is headed for divorce, the need to persuade within a single sentence can belie the persuasion and indicate deception. 

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

JC:  Yeah.

The journalist made a point that the subject agreed with.  What is the cause?  
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 and enter into SS' language.  

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 [ 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.

"Actually" means a comparison of two or more thoughts.  We don't know what he is comparing in his mind, but it is something, to meeting on Myspace.  Perhaps in contrast to Katelyn meeting someone at work, like her boss, in the picture, that is mentioned above.  Was this a point of contention?

"the rest is history" is a strange phrase to use while a fiancé is missing.  "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.

Past Tense Reference. 

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.  Not only was it not "normal" it was "totally" a unique night.  

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. 
Note the disagreement as she did not "really" want to go Friday.  

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 that he may not have been "honest" in the interview, and what he is going to say, he really wants believed.  What is it that he really wants believed? The "person".
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"

This gives the appearance of a deliberate tangent. 

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. 
He is sleeping better than police. 
Note the unnecessary "I'm willing to do whatever I can" with "whatever" repeated, making his cooperation to police something sensitive to him. 
Note "whatever I "can" indicates limitation. He is limited in what he can give them. 

Please note:  He is praising police and federal investigators while they are unsuccessful.  This is not expected. 

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.  

Is he the last person to see her?  What about the kidnapper?, the "person"?

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"
Note everything "I can" indicates limitation.  Would you feel "limited"?  What limits him?  Time?  Ability? Consequence?

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, 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.

note that the interviewer uses the present tense, but did not catch John Carter's past tense references. 

II.  Katelyn Markham was reported missing  by her fiance, John Carter.  The following is his 911 call with 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.  Would you begin with a greeting as such?  This is not expected in an emergency.  It may be an attempt by the caller to be in a 'friendly' position with law enforcement. 

If your fiancé was missing: 

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

2.  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. 

This may be considered a form of distancing language, and an ISI (Incomplete Social Introduction) indicating possible difficulty in the relationship.  The analyst should now question if there was a problem in the relationship that is related to Katelyn's disappearance. 

3. "I can't find her anywhere" should lead to the question, "Where, specifically, have you been looking for her?"

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?  He was asked a direct question:  Where did you see her last?  He was not asked, what time, nor where she stays, nor about his own emotional state.  He was asked to tell police where he had seen her last. 

In his answer, he avoided saying where he saw her.  The location of where he saw her, therefore, is to be considered very sensitive to John Carter.  

"She stays" is present tense.  This is outside the boundary of the question, "where did you last see her?"  He avoided answering the question, instead choosing to report where she normally is.  This is a strong indication that she was somewhere else when he last saw 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.  There should be no need to explain why his emotional state would be such.  This then suggests that the emotions may be in question:

Is he nervous for her, or is he nervous for himself?

"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. It sometime near midnight, is likely truthful. 

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.  This is a focus upon himself.  We have already seen that

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
7.  Note the inclusion of "decided" to...What made him "decide" to?  Why the need to add this?  

Has he "like trying to get a hold of her" or has he "searched everywhere" for her?

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, which is appropriate. 

  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?

He has known her 6 years.  He does not say she went to bed, or was in her bed.  

D: Okay, and you guys didn't have an argument or anything?

This is a "yes or no" question.

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 an 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 as they let the subject pick and choose, by concentrating on one aspect over the other, reducing stress over deception. 

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

J: No. Never. I... never.

Broken sentence means missing information. This is self-censoring. 

  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?  What was he going to say?

This is concerning. 

He still does not use Katelyn's name yet, nor express concern about what state she may be in.  We expect to hear concern for the victim and not the caller. 

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. 

This is important:  he was asked if he spoke to Kaitlyn's mother, instead, he introduces the "cell phone" in the negative (that's not there).  Does this mean he searched the apartment and knew that everything else she owns was there except her cell phone?

The cell phone can 'ping' to locations.  

Often the addition of "phone" connects a perpetrator to a crime.  

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, as it is not expected.  This may be an example of guilt leaking out.  We look for its inclusion for any reason, even as if used as 'pardon me' type of pause.  

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. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The caller has not told all that he knows about what happened to Katelyn Markham. 


John Mc Gowan said...

Wow. Since i started reading and learning SA. I don't think i have come across a POI use so many past tense references, and for the interviewer not to pick up on it.

Anonymous said...

I checked a source that believes the "serial killer" is from OKC and from a particular church. Granted, the source is a psychic which gives them inside information. I didn't read all as my eyes were starting to glaze over, but there was mention of storage of items, etc. etc., etc.

When she got to the vet supply part I knew she was informed from the serial killer underground in the area. I only wish one of her informers would close their garage door before commencing their stalking campaigns. I noted a small child in a police cruiser on the streets walking past the home that damages others cars and homes yet nothing is done. They are still solving crime as well as creating it and have yet to find their red coat.

Anonymous said...

When and where were the remains found that are believed to be those of Katelyn Markham, and why have no tests been performed on them before now?

Anonymous said...

What does the post made @5:03 (above) have to do with Katelyn Markhams' disappearance or her fiancée as a POI?

Or for that matter, what in hades does a psychic have to do with this?

Very strange post. Gives no indication of what the heck this person is talking about. Care to explain, Anon @5:03?

Anonymous said...

He's right. A lot of weirdos could be at a church festival. Furthermore, he adds that perhaps someone had been monitoring her and knew when he left. It's a good thing only her cell phone was missing with her and not her purse!

Anonymous said...

But wait! What if,...just what if......she had a password she kept under the cushion and this is why she was drawn to the church festival? That's a great mystery!

Buckley said...

*bangs head against closest surface*

Anonymous said...

Yeah Buckley. I see your point. She was not drawn to the church festival Anon at 9:25. Boyfriend John clearly states that she did not want to go to the festival.

I've been to many church festivals and flea markets, maybe even went to that very same one out in Fairfield, and I've never seen a lot of weirdos hanging out at them. The weird ones usually have better things to do.

Trigger said...

"I swear to God, I sat in a room where there was a table, as big as life, with cash a mile high…"

quoted by Jessica Hahn on the Geraldo show, in her opening statement about John Wesley Fletcher.

deception indicated

What does John Carter say? "I would never hurt Katelyn" after talking about her in the past tense on several occasions in the media.

He hired a lawyer then stopped talking because he believed that the focus was on him and not Katelyn. No reliable denial.

deception indicated

Unknown said...


John Mc Gowan said...


Oscar Pistorius's ex-stylist breaks silence on 'frightening' bad temper

Anonymous said...

Trigger, Jessica Hahn was so filthy mouthed on Larry King Live that I felt humiliated FOR him just having to sit through her nasty mouth. He could have (and should have) shut her off the mic. She was one incredibly nasty woman.

As for John Carter, maybe the focus on Katelyns' breasts in the photo is what set him off. Not trying to demean her, but from the look on her face, (almost defiant), she knew what she was doing when she allowed this shot.

Katprint said...

John Carter calling to report her "missing" before calling hospitals or the regular police to see if she was in jail, jumped out at me.

My husband and I live close enough to my husband's work that he rides his bike to work if the weather is nice especially in the summer. Several years ago, my husband didn't come home one evening within the normal time range that he usually gets home. I later found out that he was at an evening business meeting that had come up suddenly but at the time, I started freaking out when it got dark outside and he still wasn't home. I called his work, his best friend, his parents, other friends of ours, the local hospital, and the police (I didn't file a missing person report -- I just checked to see if there had been any accidents involving bicyclists.) I called one of my friends and made arrangements for her to watch my sons while I drove the route my husband usually rode his bike. It was about 10:00 pm at that point. As I was getting my sons into their carseats, my husband called and explained that he had just gotten out of his meeting. I was so relieved to hear from him that I didn't even get angry about him not calling me to let me know he'd be late. I called his parents to let him know he was fine and I called my friend to tell her that she didn't need to watch my sons after all, but I didn't call the other people because it was getting so late. The next day, they all called me to find out if I had ever found my husband.

In my mind, filing a missing person report for an adult is what you would do if you had already exhausted every other alternative. I thought the 911 dispatcher's question about whether he had called the hospitals or the jail was an EXCELLENT question. He said he "can't find her anywhere" but he hadn't looked for her everywhere. Why would you file a "missing person" report -- as he specifically described the purpose of his 911 call -- for someone who might not be "missing"?

Unknown said...

Great point Katprint!

I also found it strange that he said he drove to her apartment to check on her, and was surprised because her car was there, when she should have been at work.

If she should have been at work, then why didn't he drive THERE to check on her...why would he drive to her apartment expecting NOT to find her there?

He claims he knew something was wrong when he saw her car, which is the opposite of what I would expect. When he saw her car he should have felt relief, as the natural assumption would be that he was about to find her in her apartment. Instead he identifies the moment he saw her car as the moment he knew something was wrong.

Even upon discovering she isn't inside the apartment, it's strange that he doesn't assume that maybe her car was broken down, or she possibly to catch a ride with a friend, forgot her purse, etc. All of those options are more reasonable than jumping directly to 'missing'.

It's also a strange assumption, based on the tiny amount of time she has been unaccounted for. If you believe his account of the last time he saw her the night before, it had only been around 15 hours since he last saw her, (most of which she would have been asleep)...yet, he is ALREADY calling 911. He also outlines her busy schedule which would clearly necessitate times when they were apart for much longer than 15 hours at a time, making his response all the more unexpected.

His story stinks. Add that to the fact that he admitted to burning evidence, which he claims were documents, and 'stuff' Katelyn had asked him to get rid of! He should have been charged years ago!

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Katprint @1:08 8/26. My own situation was different than yours; but when I was young, naïve and newly married, my husband (divorced shortly thereafter) would get off work at noon on Sats and take off from work to go fishing and beer drinking with his buds and leave me sitting all week-end with a new baby, no car and sometimes little food or formula for the baby, etc.

In the early stages of these 'missing' nightmares, I would worry, lose sleep, cry and pace, call his family, co-workers, and every friend of his (or their wives) that I could think of to see if anyone knew where he was or if something terrible might have happened; finally calling all the hospitals and the jail to see if he'd been admitted anywhere. Not.

But it never occurred to me to call 911 and report him missing simply because he hadn't shown up at home and no one knew his whereabouts, or if they did they weren't telling me. But I'm sure had he not shown up in time to go back to work on Mon morn, or had not eventually shown up at work I would have frightfully concluded that he actually was missing.

So why would John Clark jump to conclusions and decide Katelyn was missing if he hadn't already known she was missing? Like John says, his numerous past tense remarks already concluded that he was lying and KNEW she was a goner. Right Jew Ow; just as SA reveals, he should have been arrested within hours of reporting his and her so-called actions and making his lying statements, yet he remains a free man.

Nic said...

Jen Ow said:
I also found it strange that he said he drove to her apartment to check on her, and was surprised because her car was there, when she should have been at work.

If she should have been at work, then why didn't he drive THERE to check on her...why would he drive to her apartment expecting NOT to find her there?

Because he didn't trust her. I'm thinking that his "normal" behavior was to drive by her place when she was home alone to make sure she was where she was "suppose" to be. Alone being the operative word. Six years is a long time to be intimate/going out with someone and not evolving to another level of togetherness. Maybe he was overly possessive which made her cherish her independence. He commented how busy she "always was" (complaining). It sounds like she worked hard at not being so available. If he was suffocating and controlling, her work life was probably her social life away from him. The picture would enrage him. (Loss of control.)


Anonymous said...

I knew Katelyn Markham from the Art Institute. I witnessed an incident of a phone call from John Carter to her.

She came into where I worked at, when she got the call she didn't leave the room, she put in on speaker and I could hear the whole conversation. I do not know why she didn't leave the room but stayed on the phone the whole time.

I could definitely hear his voice well, from my perspective and she was sitting about five feet away from me, the tone of the voice was s young man, very articulate but at the same time very threatening. The very first question asked of her was where she was at and why she didn't tell him where she was at. She replied that she had just gotten off work and was doing homework.

Then the conversation turned into something about a car. She had to literally beg him that they would talk about it later, she said more than three times that they would talk about it later, then she started crying, which was so much against her nature.

What was so strange about this is that most normal people who take personal calls usually do not take them in front of other people. And they don't usually put it on speaker so other people can hear them.

From the phone call, the male was threatening, he made her account for where she was at and she never hung up until he was done speaking. If that was John Carter then he could never say that there were not domestic issues, because the phone call betrayed that. If that was John Carter then he could never say that their relationship had no problems, because it was obviously a problem if she had to account for the very location she was sitting at, even though she had never left the building she was in.

I reported this to the police and the detective after her body was found and they asked me to listen to videos of John Carter speaking, because I didn't know him. The one thing that I identified in the audio was the fact that in the phone call with her he was clearing his throat and that is exactly what it sounded like on the phone.

And on top of that, I personally heard Katelyn say in my presence that she was going to work at a graphic design company in Cincinnati, not Colorado. Whatever is said in the media came from him saying they were going to Colorado. I know she said she was going to work in Cincinnati.