Saturday, May 14, 2016

Katelyn Markham 911 Call Analysis Report

 Katelyn Markham went missing, and was later found dead. No arrests have been made.  This is the call from John Carter, who was engaged to her at the time of the call. 

I am sometimes asked what a written report looks like as analysis on the blog is short, superficial, and intended to catch the attention of the investigators, journalists, therapists, as well as the general public.    Depending upon the case, it is generally in two parts:

I.  The Analysis and Conclusion
II. Profile and Interview Strategy and Tactical Questions 

Although this is not a complete report, it is a more detailed analysis of the 911 call made when Katelyn Markham went missing.  There is no inclusion of Part II. 

Hyatt Analysis Services
for training seminars or at home:  www.hyattanalysis.com 



Katelyn Markham Case:  911 Call from John Carter.

Introduction:  In research of 911 calls, Statement Analysis recognizes patterns of speech within the context of the emergency that prompted the call. This is to highlight ‘the allegation’ or emergency stated’ (alleging here that one is missing) and the expected language that will be employed to facilitate the flow of information to find the victim and bring positive resolution to the call.  

 There is, according to the reason for the call, an expectation of wording. For example, when a person is missing, it is expected that the call is urgent and concern will be expressed for the missing person.  The caller cares not for himself, or how he may appear, because his sole focus is finding the missing person.  

There is also wording that is “unexpected”, and statistically, 'red flagged' for the possible conclusion that the caller has guilty knowledge of the crime.  These are often elements of sense.  


1.      Emergency 911 calls that begin with a greeting are flagged.   In an emergency, the caller is expected to go right to what is on his mind.  Calls that begin with “hello” or “hi” are more associated with guilty knowledge than with innocence, statistically, and the obvious psychological element is the urgency of the call precludes any greeting.  Greetings are polite, and can even be an attempt to ingratiate oneself to law enforcement, to sound 'cooperative.'  This need to sound cooperative, itself, is concerning.  
2.      Expression of Emotions.  Callers are upset in emergencies and do not  need to identify their emotions.  Those who have a need to proclaim what emotions they are experiencing may be doing so artificially.  
3.     Ask for help for the victim, and not for self. Guilty callers sometimes ask for help for themselves, revealing an understanding that it is they, themselves, in need of help.
4.     The words “I’m sorry” statistically are found in callers with guilty knowledge, for whatever reason. 
5.     Order indicates priority.  We expect to hear the order reflect the priority of the victim’s life, not the concern over the caller’s state, condition, or life. \
6.     Overly polite callers.  In an emergency, not only do we not expect a greeting, but we do expect an urgency that is reflected in the language.  Conversely, we note any attempts on the part of the caller to ‘sound cooperative’ or ‘appear to be on friendly terms’ with law enforcement, as represented by the 911 operator.
7.     We expect a complete social introduction of the victim, and the caller to not distance himself, for example, from the victim.
8.     We do not expect to hear any victim blaming, even in a subtle manner. 
9.      We do not expect any question to remain unanswered or diverted. 
10.  We do expect the overall scope of the call to be about Katelyn, her well being, what she may be experiencing, and not about the caller, himself. 
11.  We expect the innocent caller to highlight where they were last together, as a most important and even treasured moment, using the pronoun “we” to describe it, with stark clarity due to the intense emotions of fear of what happened. 
The analysis is completed for this purpose:  to learn if the caller is an “innocent caller” who has made this phone call to police to help locate the missing victim;
or, if the caller has guilty knowledge of what has happened to the victim, and is working, not to find the victim, but to benefit himself by portraying himself in a positive light, and even the possibility of suggesting ‘other’ suspects for police to investigate. 

Question for analyst:  “Does John Carter have guilty knowledge of what happened to Katelyn Markham?”


The call began with the 911 operator asking for the location of the emergency.

J:  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 fiancée is missing, I can't find her anywhere.

This first response is important. 
a.      The call began with a greeting.  This is a red flag that is noted.  Next, let’s view the order of the wording:
b.     Order indicates priority:

1.      “Hi” is a greeting
2.     Caller’s name stated
3.     He, himself is calling
4.     He is aware that you’re not supposed to report a missing person after-before 24 hours.  This is against “urgency”; as one who is concerned with the welfare of the victim that he is unconcerned with any ‘rules’ to follow.  This is an example of one who is ‘overly polite’ in a call that politeness is not expected. 
5.     my fiancée is missing.  This is the fifth (5th) item communicated and is the only information about the victim, whereas he has spoken considerably more about himself, including that he is a ‘rule follower’ as a form of persuasion. 

This order is important.  Before he reports the missing person he has used his name, or referencing himself four (4) times, and the victim, once (1).  After reporting the victim missing, he again puts himself into the statement:  I can’t find her anywhere” suggests that he has been searching ‘everywhere.’

There are three elements within this first response that are consistent:  The greeting is polite, friendly (and unexpected) and he also wants them to know that he is not a ‘rule breaker’ in that he knows not to call before 24 hours, and he also wants police to think of him as someone who is helpful:  “I can’t find her anywhere.”

We have an abundance of information from him, about him, but we do not even have her name.

c.     Social Introductions.  In statement analysis, a social introduction, chosen in less than a microsecond of time by the brain, can reveal the quality of the relationship, and it is to be noted, and then followed in the rest of the statement. 
“My fiancée, Katelyn Markham is missing” would have been the first thing many callers would have said, making it (1) the priority and the words, “my fiancée, Katelyn Markham” is a complete social introduction; indicative of a good relationship.  It has the three necessary elements:  her name, her title (fiancée) and the possessive pronoun “my” as close personal ownership.   

The lack of complete social introduction is indicative of a troubled relationship, yet it is interesting to note that when the victim is referenced, it is only in the context of how she relates to him.  We now look to see if in how he references Katelyn if it will be naturally close language, or if he will distance himself from her, while she is a victim. 

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

Location

Consider this question in light of his answer.  This question is specifically about the location where he last saw her.  Think of what he has offered:  He could not find her anywhere and now is asked the last place he saw her. This is a very astute question and one that is critical in the investigation.

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 -

The question has been avoided.  When one avoids a question, the question itself is sensitive. Remember, people rarely ever lie out right as it does not come from experiential memory and causes internal stress.  “Where” did you last see her?
He tells them what time, but not where. 
He then went into this deception more fully:  he told the operator what she normally does, in the present tense, while avoiding what happened last night when he last saw her.  This is a very strong signal that he last saw her someplace other than her house.  Deceptive people are counting on us to interpret their words as if he said, “I last saw her at midnight at her house.”  He did not say this,  but uses the common deceptive technique anticipating that the police will “interpret” him to mean at her house. 

Note "um" is a pause to think, indicating sensitivity.  Why the need to pause to think? Generally, the brain is on high alert, with hormonal response giving clarity.  He was asked the last place he saw her and he felt the need to answer the question appropriately

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

This signifies that John Carter has a reason why he will not tell the police the location of the last time he saw her.

Since he refuses to answer the question and then moved to the present tense tangent (a common form of deception.  For example, “Did you use illegal drugs on Wednesday, while on duty?” is answered with the present tense tangent, “I don’t use drugs!” which avoids the direct question because of the internal stress of direct lying.)

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. 

He may be telling the truth about the time, but withholds the location.  Because he used her house in a deceptive manner, it is safe to conclude that the last place he saw her was not at her house.

Re-emergence of Self, rather than the Victim’s plight.

Please note the phrase, "I'm just,  really nervous"; not just "nervous" but "really" nervous.  This is a focus upon the caller himself, not the victim. It is about his emotion, and not about what the missing victim may be going through.   Innocent callers focus upon the victim and ask for help, specifically, for the victim, and when someone is missing, a particular and expected portion of the statement will be to wonder or worry what the victim is experiencing at this very moment.  Instead, he wants police to know what he, himself, is experiencing.

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.  

Q.  What does his first answer communicate to the police about Katelyn?
A.  That he is the priority.  He is a good guy, for he follows the rules.  He can’t find her is to suggest that he has been looking for her, as a dedicated fiancée would, and that his emotions are something he needs them to know:  he is scared or “freaking out” for her. 

The focus upon self, even in just this short portion of his initial statement, gives signals of the status of “guilty caller.” 

Lastly, “I can’t find her anywhere” is examined.  If you could not find your fiancée anywhere, you would be nervous too. 

In order to be unable to find a missing adult “anywhere”, the person must, by necessity, search everywhere.  He reports that he cannot find her “anywhere”, which is to suggest that she will not be found.  She is not found “anywhere.”

Think of who might say this?

Perhaps a parent of a toddler who has search the house, the closets, the yard, and so on, reducing the vicinity to the scope of a toddler. 

An adult has a much larger scope. 

Since you cannot find her anywhere, does anywhere include various bars that you searched in the area?  Since you cannot find her anywhere, where, exactly, did you search that you could not find her?

This statement, in fact, is a statement of pessimism; something that the caller should not yet experience.  This pessimism is consistent with “leakage” or the inadvertent release of information telegraphing to the police this message:

you won’t find her, since, I, the fiancée, have not been able to find her anywhere” even if he has done no searching.  It is to discourage police from finding Katelyn.  This is his language that he has chosen. Consider the speed of transmission of choosing one’s own words is less than a micro second in time. 

If he has not physically searched the area, the malls, the stores, hospitals, and so on, the deceptive nature of the statement is even more pronounced.  

In just his first response, we learn that John Carter is working against the 911 operator, and is hindering the flow of information, rather than facilitate it.  The priority for John Carter is John Carter, not the victim. 

D: Is there an address?



J: Yeah, 5214 Dorshire Drive.

D: 5214?

J: Dorshire, yes.



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

This is a natural question because he has ‘communicated’ that he must have been there and everywhere searching for her because he cannot find her anywhere. This shows the 911 operator listening.

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 needs to avoid saying, “no” (it is a yes or no question) but pauses, with “um”, to give himself time to think of what to say.  He avoided the question.   
2.     Note the indication of deception:  he can’t find her “anywhere” but now we learn what this means: “I, like, have been trying to get ahold of her” is not to search everywhere as previously stated.  He did not say the had been trying, but “like trying”, which is an extra word quickly chosen to further reduce commitment to a task.  He has not been searching but only “like trying to get a hold of her.”  Getting “a hold of” someone is casual language and not the language of urgency, or of searching.    This is to reveal that he not only has withheld the location of where he saw her last, but that his assertion to trying to find her is a deliberate deception intended to cause police to believe something that is not true.

3.     He continues this casual language.  He went from “I can’t find her anywhere” to now just “like” trying to get a hold of her, and now to “go by her house”; not to go to her house nor to search the area.  We “go by” someone’s house in a casual, or uninvited manner, as a consequence of convenience; such as being in the area.  Instead, the innocent caller would say something firm, “I am going to her house” to search the house, to search the area, to look for possible signs of a break in, and so on.  It could be anything that shows urgency and concern.  His words show no urgency.  He is moving away from his statement of emotional urgency and is being betrayed by his own choice of words.  This is to show how difficult outright lying is:  we do whatever we can to avoid direct lying by withholding information, but also we reveal ourselves in the words we employ. 

4.     “Decided” is to make a decision.  If you were very upset and cannot find your fiancée anywhere, would a decision be necessary to go to her home?  This is to say that he considered against going to her home.  This lack of commitment is seen here, and in the casual ‘stopping by’ like language he used.  This “decision” shows that he did, internally, debate whether or not he should go there, which tells us why he did not answer the question with “no” when posed to him, and needed to pause (“um”) to think of what to say.

5.     “…to go by her house to see if she was okay…” which tells us that he is only “going by” her house to see if she was “okay.”  Now, if one said that he could not find her “anywhere”, would “anywhere” include her house?  Here he feels even the need to explain why he decided to go to her house.  This is unnecessary information which, to the analysis, is increased in importance.  It is as if he anticipated being asked, “Why did you go to her house?”  It is to reveal his own fear of being questioned.  If he was as concerned as he said, and that he could not find her anywhere, he would feel no need to explain why he would go to her home.  Yet, going to her house is something very sensitive to him, and not something he wanted to do, and that he felt a need to explain why. 

6.     “and her car’s still there” indicates his knowledge of the case.  He has not yet told us who the victim is, but has spoken of his own emotional estate, and now her car.  One may wonder when he saw that her car was still there, since he is just “heading” there now. 

7.     Emotions in a statement. 

We carefully note the locations within a statement.  It is natural to be frightened, and there is no reason to state this.  He has stated being “really nervous”, but then took this heightened emotion and “headed” out to “go by” the victim’s house.  This is an incongruent statement of emotion and language; the intended emotion is not matched by the language.  Now, he changes from “really nervous” to something else. 

“Which is why I'm like really freaking out” is to tell the reason for something; though he has not been asked.  He is not “freaking out”, nor is he “really freaking out” but, again, while committing to his own emotional state, he uses the word “like” to reduce commitment.  People do not like to lie directly and they especially do not like to lie about their emotions; they do, but they don’t like it.  One’s own emotions are important to self, and often protected, so when one is feigning surprise, or feigning shock, the act of feigning the emotion is sometimes seen in the wording.  For him, this is the second use of the word “like” (not enough to establish a habit) and it is restricted to what emotions he wishes to express to police.

Please note that it is not the emotions that he is experiencing that we are examining:  it is his need to inform the police of his emotions that we are focusing upon.

It is unnecessary inclusion of emotions and he continues to show ‘concern’ for himself, but not for the victim.  Not only does he not commit to the emotion of “freaking out” (panic, anxiety, etc) with the word “like”, but he also feels the need to explain why he has this emotion, as if not finding her “anywhere” was not enough to freak anyone out.  He feels the need, during this very short emergency call about Katelyn, to justify his own emotions; that is, to explain to the police why he has this emotion.

This is a very strong indication of artificial emotion; that is, artificial emotion of anxiety for the victim.  This continues to show the priority is not Katelyn, but John Carter, the subject, himself. 




D: What's her name?

This should not have to be asked.

He had to be asked before he gave her name.  This is indicative of something amiss in the relationship. We have his name and we have his emotions, but we do not know who the victim actually is, outside of her relationship to him as engaged. 

 Police should seek to learn if they fought this night, in particular, and if stressors had been building in the days or weeks up to this point. 

He does not want to reveal the location where he last saw her, and he does not express optimism that they will find her, nor does he show any concern for her well-being to this point.  His priority has been set in his language:  John Carter is the priority of this call.

J: Katelyn Helene Markham.



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



This is natural because he cannot find her “anywhere.” Note that the doubt may have crept into the mind of the 911 operator due to his “non-committal” words, or casual expressions, which caused her to add, “or anything?”

J: Um -

He does not answer, but only pauses to think. 

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



At this point, she is his fiancée so the expectation is that he will say “we were at her house”, using the word “we”, which would show unity, since they were engaged to be married.  Pronouns are intuitive, instinctive and powerful.  Instead, we get: 

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.  He does not use the pronoun “we” here.  This is a very tense time for him and it is the location he first did not want to answer.  This was a very good question.  He does not include himself in the first responses. 

1.  She was at her house.  
2.  She was going to bed. This is to show her intention, but not what happened.  Both of these statements may be, initially, and technically, true, but they are not the complete answer of what happened to Katelyn.  The lack of “we” in this is critical.  Why?

We drove to the woods and he raped me.  We drove home and I called police.”  This is an example of a deceptive statement because the  pronoun “we” indicates unity and cooperation.  Once the rape has occurred, there is no more “we” between rapist and victim.  When the word “we” enters the statement after the assault, it is likely deceptive.  Victims despise the rapist and will not use the pronoun “we” here.

In the same sense, the person he was engaged to is missing.  This means he should be on high alert and well familiar with the last moments they were together, thinking of the last moments “we were together”, over and over in his mind.  The high hormonal response would make this crystal clear in his mind and language.  That he does not use the pronoun “we” here is most unexpected and affirms the Incomplete Social Introduction in the first response, and the distancing language of avoiding using her name.

When asked about the last time he was with her, he does not use the pronoun “we” is to reveal to us that there was, at the last time they were together, no unity between them.  This is an example of extreme distancing due to context. 

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?

This is a simple, “yes or no” question.  We note that he should say “no” with nothing added as there should be no reason to emphasize the negative.

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.  It is affirmed by the Incomplete Social Introduction, avoidance of her name (distancing language) and the avoidance of the word “no”, coupled with the need to emphasize, “not at all.”

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, or she could have been drugged.  By simply stating “no”, it would not have triggered suspicion about possible drug use.   

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?  Was something about breaking up and “not being able to go on” without the other, enter the argument?

This is very concerning. 

He still has not used Katelyn's name yet. This is an avoidance of the name of the victim; a psychological de-personalizing of the victim. 

The 911 operator is in the place of having to go ‘fishing’ for information.  Remember, he already said that he could not find her “anywhere” but in further questioning, we have indication that he has not searched anywhere, therefore, the 911 operator takes upon herself the burden of trying to facilitate information because John Carter is not. 

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.

He called “her” father; still the avoidance of her name.  Next he tells us that the “only thing not there” (in the negative) is her cell phone.  This is to say that he has direct knowledge of what else was not missing.  This tells us that he either inventoried her entire apartment or he has direct knowledge of what was not taken and has a purpose for saying so.  This is affirmed by his next words, “…which is positive” while refuting this with the word “but.”

The investigators should wonder how it is that he knows that this is the “only thing” not there. 

Please next note the suggestion of possible criminals with the “Sacred Heart Festival.”  He states that there are lots of “questionable people” there.

Then he concludes with two words that are sometimes found within guilty callers of 911 calls:

“I’m sorry.”

There is a psychological reason for this.  Guilty people who call 911 in a domestic homicide recognize that the victim is beyond help, so any words that seem to suggest concern are often weak, or even absent.  They know that the victim is beyond help, and the one person who really needs help is the caller, himself.  The guilty caller in a domestic homicide is the one in need of help, particularly a defense attorney.  The guilty caller in a domestic homicide is the one who is sorry for what he has done; it may not have been pre meditated but something exploded out of control. 

Statistically, the inclusion of these two words is associated with guilt.

When Cindy Anthony threatened to call 911, Casey might not have believed her at first, but Cindy went through with it, and then put Casey on the phone to report missing toddler, Caylee Anthony.  In short order, Casey said, “I’m sorry” within the call. 

It is not always sorrow or regret for the homicide, but the guilty caller may be sorry that he is even in this position, or that he “had to” take the victim’s life. 


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.

The unnecessary and small detail to appear cooperative.  Yet, nothing about Katelyn; nothing about what she was wearing when last with him.  He gives much more information about himself than he does about the victim.

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

J: Okay, thank you.

D: Mmmhmm. Bye.
J: Okay. Bye.

Analysis Conclusion

The caller, John Carter, is deceptively withholding information about what happened to Katelyn Markham, when he made this call.

He had a need to not only withhold information, but to portray himself as a ‘good guy’; ingratiating himself to police, who would be investigating him.  This is the ‘make friends’ psychological attempt to be “on the same side” as law enforcement investigators. 

He does not work to facilitate information to locate Katelyn.  Some specifics of this include:

1.      He is the priority of this call; not Katelyn.
2.     He psychologically distances himself from Katelyn.
3.     He expresses no concern for Katelyn, while highlighting his own emotions. 
4.     He is deceptive about the last time he saw her alive.
5.     He is deceptive about searching ‘everywhere’ for her.
6.     He is concerned about how he is perceived by the police, rather than concern for Katelyn.
7.     He signals that the search is not going to end well by claiming that he could not find her anywhere, yet, he had not verbalized any search.  The “I can’t find her anywhere” is the “hopeless conclusion” that guilty parties sometimes give.  “I will search for the rest of my life” said OJ Simpson about Nicole’s “real” killer.  This signals belief that there will be no success.  John Carter uses the same vein of thinking; offering a false exasperation in order to appear anxious, with his own ‘appearance’ taking priority over Katelyn’s plight. 


Conclusion Summary:   John Carter shows the status of ‘guilty caller’ in this 911 call.

This does not mean he killed her.  It means he has knowledge of what happened. 

If someone else is arrested, the analysis is to make a correlation between the caller and the killer.  

He has not been charged and this is only the opinion of Peter Hyatt, based upon the publicly released statements.  

109 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you make of him using the word, deceptive in his call? "She's not deceiving, you know. . . ."
That's not a word I'd expect to hear in a call about a missing loved one.

Anonymous said...

off topic:

We have become an entire nation experiencing STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.

Anonymous said...

That's random! What prompted that statement?

Anonymous said...

Can a persons character rather than just personality be determned be their appearance? Clothing, jewelry, tattoos, hair style, make up & other 'body' decoration. Appearance prompts this curiosity.

Buckley said...

The analysis of a radio interview of him was awesome, too. Repeated past tense.

What about the case has precluded him so much from being a suspect? He really doesn't seem bright enough to have pulled it off so well.

Nic said...

: 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 -



12 o’clock last night

this sounds like two different times, or like saying at approximately 2:35

12 o’clock noon
v
12 o’clock midnight

or

last night


She “stays” in a house,

“she” he doesn’t use her name
I would expect him to say “lives”, instead he says, “stays”
“stay” is not sitting (tension), it is remaining in the same spot/position/state



by herself

I would expect him to say, she lives alone.

She lives alone, instead she is in the same state, by herself

a house

“a” is not “her” house, it’s a location being introduced for the first time


Conclusion: He knows she’s dead when he makes this 911 call.

What I post is my opinion based on my application of statement analysis principles to the publicly released 911 call made by John Carter.

Nic said...

to go by her house to see if she was okay

What I find interesting is that his 911 call is about his missing fiancee. I would expect the reason he would be going by her house would be to see if she was there, not if she was “okay”. Two different intents 1) missing person call, 2) introduction of “if” (conditional) “okay”, i.e., alright, in good form, and/or “living” which he does not say she is doing at “a” house.

Buckley said...

Good points. He just can't bring himself to say "she lives" can he?

"by herself"

Is this akin to "with" in a relationship? Was there tension about her living arrangements?

On 12:00 last night- that doesn't strike me as odd if he slept in between.

Anonymous said...

Peter -

OT - Amanda Knox

There is a new show called "Guilt" on the "Freeform" channel (at least on Dish Network). The details in the previews look almost identical to the Amanda Knox case.

-KC

Buckley said...

Another great catch, Nic.

John mcgowan said...


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



Considering they are engaged i would expect them to be living together (not all do) Yet his language suggests they don't. If they live together (which they don't seem to be) does she own the house and this is why he says "She was at her house." He doesn't consider it theirs or his.

What caught my eye however, was this.

"so she would've been in her bed"

Why doesn't he say, the more natural, "so she would've been in bed" He allocates her, her own bed. Were they sleeping in separate rooms/beds/houses? Saying "her bed", suggests too, that when he stays there, he more often than not sleeps elsewhere. I wonder if they had or were discussing breaking off the engagement, more so her.

They have been together for 6 years.

John mcgowan said...

Why does he feel the need to specify "her bed"?
Did something happen in "his bed"?
Is this a form of distancing himself from "her bed"
Not "our bed" (although this too, if used, raises red flags about the state of a relationship usually in the negative) or "the bed"

Buckley said...

Or is he worried about her being in someone else's bed?

Me2l said...

Exactly.

How are so many people with behavior that appears suspect, not only to inexperienced lay persons, but to those who analyze statements and behavior, capable of intricate murder planning?

That being the case, without seeming overly bright, how are they capable of "outsmarting" LE?

The Amanda Blackburn murder comes to mind. Commenters have attributed complex murder planning to both Davey Blackburn and a host others, implying a giant scheme of sorts, even including the thugs who have been charged.

Why? How "intelligent" or "UNintelligent" must someone be to pull off a murder, while outsmarting LE?

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...


Thank you, Buckley.

Buckley said:
On 12:00 last night- that doesn't strike me as odd if he slept in between.


That's why I likened 12 o'clock to i.e., approximate 2:35 (using approximate to general a very specific point in time.)

As well, I further to seeing if she was okay, it's not that he wanted to know if she was okay or not, but that he didn't want to:

1) see if she was there
2) if yes, if she was okay
3) why she "ran off" to be by herself*

Is wanting to be "by herself" something she told him she wanted? How does he know she was "by herself" as he only talked to her dad. He doesn't say to the 911 operator they he even checked hospitals, with friends, etc.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Part of my post went AWOL inserting the bold.

I wanted to say thank you and further to sleeping in-between.

Buckley, you raise a good point (that he slept). However, (projecting!) I would say, “I got in at Midnight”. Or, “I got in at 12 midnight.” Or, “My train arrived at 12-noon.” Or “I saw her last evening/night (two different periods of time, i..e, before the sun goes down versus after sunset).” Or, “We all went home at Midnight.” Or, “We got together for lunch at Noon."

That's why I likened 12 o’clock “last night” to i.e., approximate 2:35 (using approximate to generalize a very specific point in time.)

Maybe I'm being too pedantic.

Nic said...

This autocorrect of mine is driving me nuts! *approximately.

Nic said...

Peter, another 911 call you should resurrect (per overly polite callers,) is the one from the Zahra Baker's case.

Nic said...

Peter said:
The words “I’m sorry” statistically are found in callers with guilty knowledge, for whatever reason.


Being Canadian, I wonder how many of our 911 calls are made with “sorry” or "I'm sorry" in it. I’m serious. I have to make a conscientious decision to say “pardon me” or “excuse me” in lieu of “sorry!” for simple things such as rounding a corner in a grocery store and meeting someone at the cap of the aisle — wherein we've both said, “Sorry!” It’s ridiculous.

Nic said...

John said:
What caught my eye however, was this.

"so she would've been in her bed"

Why doesn't he say, the more natural, "so she would've been in bed" He allocates her, her own bed. Were they sleeping in separate rooms/beds/houses? Saying "her bed", suggests too, that when he stays there, he more often than not sleeps elsewhere. I wonder if they had or were discussing breaking off the engagement, more so her.


Good analysis, John. What would have been something they shared at one time he identifies a solely hers when last he saw her.

Also, "would have" is conditional conjugation. As Peter pointed out, she was going to bed but the action was not completed.

Peter also said location is important. Especially when bed is mentioned. Bed is where we are our most vulnerable.

Nic said...

She wasn't "safe" in her bed?

Fm25 said...

I'm not familiar with this case but based on the information here I can't believe the fiancé is not a suspect.

Nix, I'm with you in the I'm sorry part as I say it way too much and often when no apology needed. Also greeting 911 operator seems common to me, at least in the context of a missing person report. If it were an actual emergency like walking in and finding your wife bleeding on the floor (aka Blackburn case) I would not expect a greeting. I suspect that 911 recording will begin similarly, "hi, my name is db, I just returned from gym and found my wife injured."
-
I do hope that your analyses attract both media and investigative attention. It seems sometimes le starts going down 1 path and then have blinders on to everything else.
-It would also be interesting to see analysis of the 911 calls for the rhoden's case. I haven't seen transcripts yet but understand there may have been some inconsistencies.

Lis said...

This is a fantastic lesson, there is so much information in this short interchange. This would make a great introduction to statement analysis.

I am intrigued by his emphasis on her own home and her own bed.

She stays in a house by herself, um, so, she -

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

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.


There is repetition of this theme yet he gives no concrete information of her being at her home. Home and bed seem sensitive.

Conclusion Summary: John Carter shows the status of ‘guilty caller’ in this 911 call.

This does not mean he killed her. It means he has knowledge of what happened.


Good point. Could this be like if they were both in a situation where he was aware she had lost her life but he does not want to involve himself in that situation/give away that he was there?

Lis said...

I agree that him bringing up deception is unexpected and strange.

she's not deceiving, you know, she doesn't -

Why would he even say that? And, she doesn't- what??

Nic said...

He was asked two (time related) questions and he gave two answers;

Okay, where'd you see her last?
a house (new location) by herself

Where was she at midnight
She was at her house. She was going to bed.

Buckley said...

She wasn't safe in someone else's bed.

They didn't live together, so I don't think his saying her bed and her house is the same as a husband saying it, that is, we wouldn't expect "our" so "her" isn't sensitive because of that, but because it enters his language at all. Why does he bring up bed? He's implying, without stating directly, he witnessed her end her evening. Nothing happened after that. But it's fuzzy- like Peter says- the last place he saw her was NOT at her house, but he wants us to think that. It's alibi building.

Nic said...

Where was she at midnight (when you saw her last)
is a compound question, he answers at Midnight.

John mcgowan said...

That he says "her bed" is important to him. Its a form of separation. It's more natural and expected to hear someone say "so she would've been in bed" Why specify "her"

Buckley said...


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 -


Yeah, John Carter is worried about another guy.

John mcgowan said...

Peter said

One may wonder when he saw that her car was still there, since he is just “heading” there now.

And there you have it!

lynda said...

This was a great lesson Peter. I must be learning something because I was able to pick up on many "words" that you pointed out.

I am not familiar with this case so I did a quick look up and discovered her body was not found for over 20 months, in a black plastic bag, near a dump site 30 miles from her home. LE stated that not only is John Carter not a suspect at this time, he is also not a person of interest.

How can that be? Isn't the last person to see someone always at least a person on interest?

He is caught in a lie in the 911 tape! He says her purse and car are at her home which is why he's freaked out but then also states "he's on his way to her house to see if she's okay" Uh..what? How does he know her purse and car are there if he hasn't even gotten there yet?? Do the police really not even see this? He avoids answering when the last time he saw her and also avoids where he has searched and that he has not called hospitals,etc. only her father. How can he even be calling 911 and reporting her missing if he has not been out to her house to find her car and not her there? He calls 911 before he even knows these things. Because she hasn't answered his phone calls he calls 911 to report her missing? That's not normal behavior. I agree that the "she's not deceptive" is unexpected language and to me suggests that that was part of their argument.

Did they argue about her NOT being alone, seeing someone else, NOT going to bed when she should have and going out instead? With someone else? Was he waiting for her at 'her house" when she came home about 12?

Domestic killings seem to be one of the hardest to solve because even DNA won't prove much. His DNA should be all over her house and car and vice versa. As long as there are no obvious signs such as a pool of blood in your car, or a dog hit for deceased remains, as long as you hide the body well enough to never be found, or to be found as just skeletal remains, you have a pretty good chance of getting away with it, it seems.

If he did murder her, he's gotten away with it for 4 years already. Not only that but he's not even a person of interest.

lynda said...

Exactly John

Horse chestnut said...

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/kentucky-woman-says-man-beat-her-for-looking-too-masculine-as-people-stood-by-and-watched/

Notice how she says, "no one would come and help me either" as if predicting something that would happen in the future, not recounting something tgat had happened in the past.

Peter Hyatt said...

Next up is to take this analysis (conclusion) and enter, with it, into the radio interview 6 days later.

It is stunning.

Peter Hyatt said...

Blogger Nic said...
Peter said:
The words “I’m sorry” statistically are found in callers with guilty knowledge, for whatever reason.

Being Canadian, I wonder how many of our 911 calls are made with “sorry” or "I'm sorry" in it. I’m serious. I have to make a conscientious decision to say “pardon me” or “excuse me” in lieu of “sorry!” for simple things such as rounding a corner in a grocery store and meeting someone at the cap of the aisle — wherein we've both said, “Sorry!” It’s ridiculous.

May 14, 2016 at 12:19 PM Delete


I say "I'm sorry" as a habit where "excuse me" may be someone else's choice of words.

Consider, however, the high alert; high emotion context of Homicide.

My urgency would preclude me from any such politeness.

lynda said...

Peter is doing this analysis along with the radio interview John Carter did 6 days after Katelyn went missing. Below, is media interview he did 2 days after disappearance.

John Carter TV Interview Transcript - August 16, 2011
kmdce
August 16th, 2011
[Watch video here.]
_____________________________________________________


John Carter: I'm sorry, I - I just got distracted.

Reporter: No, that's okay. That's all right.

JC: Um, I wound up leaving. Then she was texting me about the things that I had to do and things like that, and I said uh, uh, "Okay, well, I'll take care of it," and all this stuff. And she's like [imitates a woman's voice], "Oh I kinda wanted to be there! But it's okay," and blah-blah-blah. Then she sent me a picture, um, of herself. It was like a picture of a picture, because she's very artistic and loves to show me her work, and stuff like that. So, uh, Katelyn sent me a picture of her, and that was the last message I got.

And then that night, uh, when I got home - it was kinda late, uh, I was with some friends after I went to her house - and, uh, I was, uh, watching TV and stuff like that, and, uh... I decided to send her a good morning text message. And, uh... uh, normally when she wakes up, she's like [imitates a woman's voice], "Oh, thank you for the message, I love you, I miss you, blah blah blah." And it was like, uh, and, and it - and she didn't do that. But I assumed that maybe she had to wake up, go to work really quick, she was getting late or something, she didn't respond. I kept texting her, I kept texting her, no response, no response. I call her, no response.

So then I went to my manager at work and I said, "Is it okay if I go to her house and see if she's okay?" I went to her house, her car was still there. That made me worry, because she should be at work. So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there, her dog was in there which - he's never there. He's, he usually goes into the bathroom where he's got a bed, and some food and water and stuff. Uh, but he wasn't in there, or he was - he was in her room, um, and uh, uh honestly he - he went to the bathroom in the room and you could tell it had been there for a while, so I knew she hadn't been in her room for a while... and, and that freaked me out. So I immediately called friends, family, police - everything I could do to get my - fiancee back. Katelyn is - the love of my life. I've been with her for six years, we've been engaged for a year, today would be exactly a year, um, today's also her birthday, and uh, I really miss her, I, I miss Katelyn a lot and I love Katelyn a lot and I really, really want to see her again. And if anybody can do anything, please do something.

R: Any idea what could've happened?

JC: [sighs] I, I don't even know anyone that would do that. She's literally the sweetest girl. Um... I, I mean - she's, she's so nice and - and caring and - I don't even have any - like, her friends are my friends, and my friends are her friends, um, except for the friends that are in her, at her school, but that's school friends. And it, it just don't seem suspicious to me. I have, I have no one in mind. I, I have nothing in mind. She would never just leave, she's too pragmatic, she would never just - take off and go somewhere. And I, I just, I can't explain it. I don't know.

R: So it must be pretty scary right now.

JC: I'm terrified. I'm absolutely terrified. I - I just want to find Katelyn and, and celebrate her birthday with her and go to Red Lobster like she was planning. That's all [laughs] I wanna do.

lynda said...

transcript continued..

R: Any signs of like a robbery or anything
inside the house?

JC: There was no signs of a break-in... um, when I went into her room, uh, she has hats on her bedpost and those were knocked off, and there was a pencil holder that was knocked off, but Murphy was in there, her dog, and he could've - and, and the pencil holder is right in the front of the window, he could've jumped up to look out the window and knocked the pencils off, and jumped off the bed - I mean, he was in there for a long time, it seems.

R: So with the timeline, what time did you leave her, from hanging out that night?

JC: I left h- I left at around 11, 11:30? Something like that?

R: Saturday night?


JC: Saturday night, yes.

R: Then, um, you were like running errands for your trip? Or what kinds of stuff -

JC: I, um, well, to be honest she wanted me to, uh, burn some legal documents for her, 'cause she didn't want anyone to get 'em out of the trash or anything like that, and she doesn't have a fire pit at her house, but my friend has a fire pit. So I was going to my friend's house to burn those documents, and, and it was just bills, and her class schedules, and stuff like that. Just stuff that she didn't want anyone else to take and find out.

R: Things you would normally shred.

JC: Exactly.

R: Okay. And what time did you get the text photo from her?

JC: Uh, I got it - I remember looking at it, it said 12:52... but to be honest, those photos come in so slowly, it could've been way earlier than that that she sent it, and I just got it at 12:52, you know?

R: What was it a photo of?

JC: Uh, it was just a picture of her, I mean, I can - I can pull it up, it's on my phone. [looks down and begins interacting with his phone]

R: What was she doing and where was she, do you know?

JC: She was at her house, she was about to go to bed... [looking down, attentive to his phone] ...Um... [still interacting with his phone]

R: Can you tell us a little bit about her? I understand she had two jobs, right? She was a student...

JC: [inattentive to the question] This was the last message. And it was just this picture of her, and it was a picture her boss took from her co-op job. And, uh, she just wanted to show it to me. And, uh, I don't know if I can turn it sideways... [turns phone sideways]

R: Yeah, it's hard to see...

JC: It's that. Yeah, I...

R: It's hard with the reflection.

JC: Yeah. Sorry, I just... that was, that was the last [laughs] thing she sent. Um, I mean, other than that, she was like, uh, the, the messages before it were, you know, I just wrote, "I just burned 'em, blah blah blah," and she was like, "Oh, I kinda wanted to be there to see it, blah blah blah!" And then I, uh... and then you know, she sent me that picture message after that, and then... nothing. Just nothing. And I assumed she was asleep at the time. I mean, it's - it's - of course!

R: She definitely wasn't going through a depression or anything like that?

JC: Not at all, not at all. I mean she was geared up to graduate, she's ready for her birthday, she's ready for - for everything. And, and, and you know, we've been talking about going to Colorado for days. I mean, if she was scared she would've said something. But...

R: And Colorado was a trip, or - ?

JC: We were gonna try and move there for a couple years, you know, kinda push ourself [sic] out into the world and start growing up and stuff like that - I mean, it was, it was time. I mean, we were in the safety net of our parents and all that stuff, and we wanted to, we wanted to get out. We wanted to be that way. So...

Trigger said...

Order of priority:

He calls her father.

He says her cell phone is missing.

She doesn't answer it

He offers an alibi

He says "I'm sorry"

Still not saying her name. Still not concerned about her well bing

guilty knowledge indicated

lynda said...

transcript continued

R: And it was a little bit of excitement for her...

JC: Pretty much. I mean that, that's all it was.

R: So you feel like since she was so organized and everything that there has to be something suspicious to you.

JC: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I don't, I don't know who would do it... or, or if anybody did it, or... I mean, I just, I don't know, it's so... up in the air. And I'm just - I just want Katelyn back.


[brief edit break in the tape]


JC: No, the last time I talked to her was Saturday night... and then uh... uh, and then I left at around 11:30, and then we were texting Saturday night, about the documents and stuff like that.

R: Okay. When did you go over to her townhouse to check on it and found the dog and everything?

JC: Around 7, 7:30.

R: The next day, Sunday?

JC: Yeah, because she was supposed to get back from work at around 7, 7:30.

R: At night?

JC: Yeah.

R: Okay.

JC: Yeah.

R: So all day long she -

JC: Yeah, yeah, and it -

R: You'd been calling her, and you couldn't get in touch with her. And I imagine that you, you know, you guys are young and you text and, all day long to each other...

JC: Yeah, and I, I had sent her so many texts. And I mean, like, after the good morning message I was a little worried, but I, you know, I just figured she was busy, it was just a busy time for her, so.

R: Was her wallet missing or anything, or was it just her cell phone?

JC: No, her purse was in her room, her keys were in her ro - in her purse in her room, along with uh, everything that she would normally take with her when she leaves. E- except for - it was her, her cell phone. Those are the only things that were missing, and I - I... Yeah.

R: Have they been able to locate her cell phone on the GPS tracking device?

JC: Not at all. [sighs] No, they weren't able to ping it. And uh... if anyone knows how to ping a phone with it being turned off, that would be... the greatest thing ever. So.

R: She ran out of juice or something on the phone, maybe?

JC: I guess... I guess, or - something happened to it, or, whatever.

R: What was the last hour that you spent with her like? I mean can you remember, were you guys, were you talking about your future?

JC: Yeah, um, I mean we were talking about Colorado and all that stuff, and... [clears throat] We were talking about, uh... uh... just, uh, the document - the - her wanting me to do those things for her, and I, uh, you know, even if I worked a ten, an eight hour day, I'd still come back and do anything for her, I'd always clean up for her, you know, vacuum her house, anything like that. 'Cause she's way more busy than me. She has two jobs and she goes to school. I mean, she deserves to be taken care of, and, and that's how I feel about it.

lynda said...

Anyone that knows please enlighten?

What is the meaning and/or why does he change his voice to sound feminine/or imitating her when he is saying something Katelyn supposedly said?

Lis said...

Interesting thread I came up with on this case https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/28wb1l/the_disappearance_and_murder_of_katelyn_markham/

Nic said...

linda said:

I, I don't even know anyone that would do that.

What is stated in the negative is important.

Stuttering on the pronoun “I”, means stress/sensitivity

Anyone is used in the context of negative. For example we don't usually say, "I don’t even know someone who would do that.” Someone usually specifies at least one person, i.e., someone can fix it (one person out of a group of people). So it’s positive. I don’t even know anyone

So could we say this is a double negative?

i.e., Try it, you wouldn’t not like it, translates as you would like it.

When he says, he doesn’t "even know anyone that would do that," does it mean he does?

would do that

Do what? At this point, she is “just” a missing person. How does he know that something was done?

Violet said...

I am not sure about him changing his voice. Maybe he is animated, or maybe he was mocking her? Or doing it to prove he knew her so well? I don't know...it's odd.


One thing that stands out to me is he repeatedly talks about the documents she asked him to burn. If it was just bills and a class schedule, why does he focus so much on it? Why did she say she wanted to be there to see it burn? He also talks about the picture she texted, and focuses in on trying to show the interviewer. I wonder if that was leakage, and he was burning a picture(s) for her, and not documents?


This also seems concerning: "E- except for - it was her, her cell phone. Those are the only things that were missing, and I - I... Yeah." So the only "things" missing are her and her phone? She is a "thing"? Odd.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRMUHkOdbG4

Buckley said...

He sounds kinda whipped, no?

Nic said...

I went to her house, her car was still there. That made me worry, because she should be at work. So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there,


she should be at work

change in verb tense (she should have been at work)

That made me worry,

Emotion perfectly placed. At this point he doesn’t know anything is wrong per se, just that her car is there so technically home and not answering his texts.


So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in,

change in verb/urgency ran to went

So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in,

Events are out of order and jumbled. First he ran in, then he (mistakenly) didn’t check to see if the door was locked. Then he turned, put his key in (as opposed to put his key in and turned) and then went in.

Story telling indicated.

put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there,

missing time

put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there,

dropped pronouns
_____________

Conclusion: Deception indicated.

Anonymous said...

The cell phone is probably missing because he took it with him to send himself a text message from 'her'...proving that she was alive after he left. Which she obviously wasn't...

Nic said...

: What was the last hour that you spent with her like? I mean can you remember, were you guys, were you talking about your future?

JC: Yeah, um, I mean we were talking about Colorado and all that stuff, and... [clears throat] We were talking about, uh... uh... just, uh, the document - the -
______

Aside from burning confidential waste for her because she didn't have a fire pit...

Why do it after midnight? That night.

Also, they were talking about "the document". A specific document.

Could she have been offered an opportunity (in writing) in another city and the opportunity not involve him? Or she didn't want him join her? ("by herself")

Order is important.
Colorado followed by "the document"

Nic said...

: Have they been able to locate her cell phone on the GPS tracking device?

JC: Not at all. [sighs] No, they weren't able to ping it. And uh... if anyone knows how to ping a phone with it being turned off, that would be... the greatest thing ever. So.

R: She ran out of juice or something on the phone, maybe?

JC: I guess... I guess, or - something happened to it, or, whatever.
________

He introduces the phone being turned off. How would he know it was turned off? The reporter offers the "expect" (ran out of juice). He says:

1) it was turned off, (or)
2) something happened to it.

He separates the phone from Katelyn. He says the phone was turned off and it is not with Katelyn

Nic said...

I don't even have any - like, her friends are my friends, and my friends are her friends, um, except for the friends that are in her, at her school, but that's school friends. And it, it just don't seem suspicious to me.

And it was just this picture of her, and it was a picture her boss took from her co-op job. And, uh, she just wanted to show it to me.
_________

I am going to speculate that John Carter was jealous of her "school friends". That up until she was murdered, their plans were together. She was ready to graduate and she was offered an opportunity (via her coop?) and it didn't involve him. She announced she wanted to be on her own go out on her own, etc. because they had been together six years (and she wanted to be by herself.) Basically she didn't want to go to Colorado with JC. I don't believe that Katelyn shared the (probably very sweet) picture of her taken by her "co-op" (school) boss. She probably smiled very sweetly for him and it made JC "suspicious".

I suspect JC forwarded the picture to himself.

jmo

rjb said...

I don't know if there's any standard meaning behind a person changing their voice when retelling what another person said to them. I do know that my mom would consistently change her voice to my mimic my father's voice when repeating something he had said. She despised him and it was her little way of venting her loathing.

Buckley said...

I'd expect finding Katelyn would be "the greatest thing ever"

Violet said...

Good job of SA, Nic. I caught that, too, about the "school friends". There was definitely some jealousy there. Also, yes it appears there was leakage about what happened to the cellphone.

If you read the reddit link, it appears he was either hosting or going to a bonfire that night, which was confirmed by a friend of theirs. It was at the bonfire that he would burn the documents. The witness confirming the story said it was a bag of bank statements and such, but the friend didn't go to the party so nothing was confirmed about what was burned.

Anonymous said...

http://www.700wlw.com/media/play/21346500/

Lis said...

Good catch, Nic, about him knowing the phone was turned off (as opposed to the battery being dead or the phone being damaged)

Anonymous said...

One thing I know for sure in my own town: That damn Sacred Heart Festival is full of questionable people! It's a church festival, you know, but those people are questionable! I am just in the neighborhood, but I can tell you one thing: those Sacred Heart Festival people are definitely QUESTIONABLE.

Lis said...

Yeah, Anon, I wondered about that. I've never been to a Sacred Heart Festival, so what do I know, but it doesn't exactly call to mind dangerous people, lol.

Anonymous said...

In my town, the church festivals (like Sacred Heart, for example), are full of families and kids and there is a feeling of safety and fun. It's not like those fly-by-night sleazy carnivals that come to town and set up for business for a few days.

Nat said...

He says "I can't find her anywhere" and that he has called her father and implies he's called her cellphone. Could his meaning be that he couldn't find her anywhere he called ?

Nat said...

I thought it odd to imply a Sacred Heart Festival was full of hooligans, too.

lynda said...

Nic said,

So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in,

Events are out of order and jumbled. First he ran in, then he (mistakenly) didn’t check to see if the door was locked. Then he turned, put his key in (as opposed to put his key in and turned) and then went in.

Story telling indicated.

put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there,


Great catch Nic, I hadn't picked up on the out of order with the key.
Interestingly, there was a huge documented thunderstorm that night there. It made the news as the winds were so high it collapsed a stage. Rain, winds, etc. How successful was a bonfire? How could they even have one?

ITA tht he sent that text to himself. PER LE, her phone was shut off at 12:45, the text of the pic came thru his phone at 12:52. A neighbor of Katelyns said there was a car that pulled into her parking lot and around 12:45 or so, and then pulled back out without the driver getting out. Stayed a min or so. I believe this is when he sent the text to himself so it would ping from her house.

The "I, I, I, will" in reference to continuing to call her cell to see if she will answer someday. Hasn't Peter said the more stutterings on "I" the more the person is headed for a breakdown. 3 stutters? He is lying about calling the cell phone and he knows she would never answer anyway.

I also think the changing of his voice was mockery. Carter is a pizza delivery guy, she is a soon to be college graduate and talented in Art. She wasn't going anywhere with pizza boy. She had 2 jobs and went to school full-time and he was her errand boy/pizza boy with no desire to be anything else. He was jealous of her, possibly emasculated, they argued, she's dead. I don't think the odds are high that some serial killer found her alone in her house, kidnapped her, but let her take her phone. Nope.

lynda said...

Also, during all this "time" he spent trying to find her, he did not call any hospitals or police, nor did he call HER WORK. Where she WAS. He texted her and called her phone but he did not call her actual place of employment to see if she was there! Because he knew she wasn't there.

Nic said...



- I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in, and went up to her room, and she wasn't there,


R: Was her wallet missing or anything, or was it just her cell phone?

JC: No, her purse was in her room, her keys were in her ro - in her purse in her room, along with uh, everything that she would normally take with her when she leaves. E- except for - it was her, her cell phone. Those are the only things that were missing, and I - I... Yeah.

___________

What we know:

The cell phone is missing.

The document is missing.

and = missing time. Time he spent gathering confidential information so as to alibi build, burying "the document" in amongst other confidential information school timetable (really?) and bank statements, etc.

And then she supposedly says, "I wanted to be there". Unexpected.

Anonymous said...

I think so. Think about someone who dresses in a reservative way all the time compared to someone who dresses according to their mood; I'd say the former is likely straightforward, calm, dependable, predictable. Whereas the latter is more excitable, unpredictable, curious, adventurous, etc..
Every person I've met or know(n) who has tattoos is open-minded and approachable. I think that's probably because they're risk takers and more likely to think outside of the box.

Nic said...

Oops, I bolded the wrong "and". I should have bolded and went up to her room.

He did something in-between entering and going up to her room (where her phone would have been with her purse and keys).

Buckley said...

"And" always equals missing time? I thought it was when a sentence started with "And".

Nic said...

Incase it wasn't obvious, he slips and says, "those are those only thingS that were missing." The only (known) thing missing is the phone. Her purse and keys are in her room. What else does a woman keep in her purse? A phone. Aside from Katelyn herself, "the document" (seepage/unknown) is the the other thing.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Buckley, and followed a comma. I'm assuming there was a pause. I could be wrong.

As in, (if this was the intended sequence,) I just put my key in, turned, and went in. And went up to her room and she wasn't there.

Nic said...

Note, too, he "just" put his key in, etc.

The word "just" is in comparison to something else. Something else was in play. IMO, rummaging.

Anonymous said...

I've mimicked my husband's voice when he's annoyed the shit out of me! He thought it was funny though, or maybe he just laughed to annoy me further.
I don't think mimicking someone else's voice is done without some level of irritation.

Nic said...

Peter said:
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.

He called “her” father; still the avoidance of her name. Next he tells us that the “only thing not there” (in the negative) is her cell phone. This is to say that he has direct knowledge of what else was not missing. This tells us that he either inventoried her entire apartment or he has direct knowledge of what was not taken and has a purpose for saying so. This is affirmed by his next words, “…which is positive” while refuting this with the word “but.”


R: What was the last hour that you spent with her like? I mean can you remember, were you guys, were you talking about your future?

JC: Yeah, um, I mean we were talking about Colorado and all that stuff, and... [clears throat] We were talking about, uh... uh... just, uh, the document - the - her wanting me to do those things for her,

______________

Peter, if "the document" was burned, would it count as "not there", or destroyed (non-existent, therefore not missing).

Nic said...

Thanks for your feedback, everybody. Every time you post something, I see *more* deception!

I can't believe LE hasn't investigated this guy more closely.

I would want to find out if Katelyn's CO-OP offered her a job. Surely LE would be able to go through her PC's history to find out to whom she contacted for jobs? Sites visited, etc., and approach them to find out if they offered her a job?

I strongly suspect Katelyn was wanting to embark on an independent life and graduating meant a new beginning. New job, new city, new (single) lifestyle. Even if the opportunity was in the same city, it meant that her path would be different from John's dream - Colorado and she wouldn't be going with him.

jmo

anon said...

Me2l you asked

How are so many people with behavior that appears suspect, not only to inexperienced lay persons, but to those who analyze statements and behavior, capable of intricate murder planning?

That being the case, without seeming overly bright, how are they capable of "outsmarting" LE?

The answer to your question is that in order to be accepted as a cop you have to score UNDER 120 on an IQ test. This is not a joke. I have a friend who was rejected as a cop for scoring 130 on the IQ test which was considered too high. They feel a bright person would become bored with all the paperwork and quit.

lynda said...

Nic said,

"I strongly suspect Katelyn was wanting to embark on an independent life and graduating meant a new beginning. New job, new city, new (single) lifestyle. Even if the opportunity was in the same city, it meant that her path would be different from John's dream - Colorado and she wouldn't be going with him"


ITA Nic, like I said, I think Katelyn had outgrown the pizza boy.

I'm stymied by the "document". You certainly wouldn't call a list of errands or some such a "document" Also, the radio host was poor interviewer. He gave him the information to talk about instead of leaving open-ended.

R: What was the last hour that you spent with her like? I mean can you remember, were you guys, were you talking about your future?

Then John agrees that YES! that's what we were talking about! Even to someone without any training I would think you could tell he was lying. To much stammering and "uh' to come up with an answer regarding their "future". He knows what they were talking about and he also knows the talking stopped with her dead.

Mel..

I don't think this was an "intricate" crime. It was more than likely heat of the moment, and then he went about hiding the body. It's as I said before, DNA is not a problem. You would expect his DNA to be everywhere and vice versa. If he strangled her..no blood. It is unknown to me if LE used luminol in his car or her home. Then just hide the body fairly well so as not to be found until decomp is complete. Come to think of it, he couldn't have strangled her as the ME said COD was unknown. The hyoid is usually broken with a strangulation. He could have smothered her. Interesting tidbit, on the Reddit thread it was said by a witness before Katelyn died, that John told a friend that they had both just used mushrooms to get high. I don't know if I believe that, but she could have overdosed, or had such a bad trip that she died from something. Again, I find that hard to believe though as mushrooms can last a long time. Hours. She had to work bright and early. She held down 2 jobs and went to school full-time. She was set to graduate so her grades were decent. Homework, etc. It seems to me she wouldn't be schrooming but that's just my opinion

Lis said...

Note, too, he "just" put his key in, etc.

The word "just" is in comparison to something else.


Could it be in comparison to trying the door first to see if it's locked?

My husband does this all the time, he is so used to putting his key in the door to unlock it when he gets home, he does it when the door's unlocked already.

Lis said...

http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/crime-law/katelyn-markhams-father-im-starting-to-get-anxious/npz6S/

Another good article that gives some background.

Violet said...

I read somewhere that he was questioned about whether the door was locked or unlocked, so that may be why he threw that comment in there.

On reddit, a local spoke of the ineptness of LE there, but said LE is too proud to turn the case over. The poster said a lot of the community feels the fiance is guilty.

His SA certainly screams that he is somehow involved.

Violet said...

Okay, I read the article linked here, and see that another department stepped in to review the case. That is a good thing. Hopefully the evidence they speak of will shed new light on this case.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

"blah-blah-blah"

Missing information.

".And"

Missing information.

".And then"

Missing information.

".So then"

Missing information.

"I wound up Leaving"

This is right at the beginning of his statement. What was asked to elicit this response.

Possible missing information.

"Then"

Missing information.

"And then that night, uh, when I got home"

Missing information.

R: "So with the timeline, what time did you leave her, from hanging out that night?

JC: I left h- I left at around 11, 11:30? Something like that?"

Usually i would highlight this as a critical portion of his statement. I'm thinking though, because it is parroted language i don't know if it is flagged in this manner? We also have a broken sentence, "I left h- I left at around 11, 11:30?" more missing information.

Anonymous said...

It is unfathomable why this case has not been solved yet. Since day one, Peter Hyatt has revealed a clearly disturbing level of deception exhibited by John Carter in the 911 call.

That's not even taking into account Carter's other public statements and actions since August 2011.

Katelyn wasn't even considered missing and endangered on Sunday night by FFPD. Her town house was not sealed by FFPD until Wednesday. Chief Dickey's quote then was "we don't know what happened". It is his job to know what happened!

Almost 5 years have passed. Katelyn's remains were discovered in April 2013. 3 law enforcement agencies, 2 PI's, and a $100 thousand dollar reward. And no one has a clue where to look for evidence and who to interrogate?

Katelyn Markham's case is a profound tragedy in a myriad of ways. Not only was she murdered and thrown away like garbage in a trash dump.

Katelyn was also disparaged and let down by law enforcement, who seem more concerned with their public image than finding answers for the family. Absolutely heartbreaking.

Anonymous said...


re: Stockholm syndrome

we have become so conditioned to the bizarre mandates from
our reprehensible leader and his advisors that even forcing
potential predators and peepers into all bathrooms is going
to become law.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcfQy_lTuXE

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/Ohio-Polygraph-Associates-LLC-302832403260347/

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/kmbehervoice/

Anonymous said...

Short news piece stops short of naming suspect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NXecKyBKOg

elf said...

I would take it as he's mocking her.

Nic said...

Lis
Note, too, he "just" put his key in, etc.

The word "just" is in comparison to something else.

Could it be in comparison to trying the door first to see if it's locked?

Violet said...
I read somewhere that he was questioned about whether the door was locked or unlocked, so that may be why he threw that comment in there.

_______________________________

Lis and Violet,

J: Um, I saw her at like 12 o' clock last night.

So I ran inside - I, I didn't - I mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked. I just turned, put my key in and went in,

Did he have a key to her place? I'm thinking they broke up earlier in the evening and she took his key (why keys would be sensitive and still in her purse.) He was there two times that night. Once at night and once at midnight. He suspected she was stepping out on him so he was watching her. He didn't have his key anymore, and being emotionally irrational he broke in and overpowered her/kidnapped her, went out the front door with her (which he had to unlock from the inside,) but forgot to lock it behind him (mistakenly didn't check to see if the door was locked). So he had to go back and lock the door. How could he do that without the key? He "ran" back inside, went back upstairs to fish his key back out of her purse. Upon leaving, he would have to turn, put his key in to lock the door...


Lis
Note, too, he "just" put his key in, etc.

The word "just" is in comparison to something else.

Could it be in comparison to trying the door first to see if it's locked?


I'm now of the opinion it was in comparison to what he did earlier. He had to turn to lock the door to leave. That day, he just had to put his key in and go in.


What I post is my opinion based on my application of statement analysis to public statements and a 911 transcript of John Carter.

Nic said...

lynda said:
I'm stymied by the "document". You certainly wouldn't call a list of errands or some such a "document" Also, the radio host was poor interviewer. He gave him the information to talk about instead of leaving open-ended.

R: What was the last hour that you spent with her like? I mean can you remember, were you guys, were you talking about your future?

____________

Actually that interview was where he introduced/identified "the document" itself, so IMO, it was a great question. :0)

Speculating:
He was talking about burning confidential waste for her that night and her texting that she wanted to be there. I don't believe she asked him to burn confidential waste for her. I believe whatever it was he wanted burned (a letter of offer? a letter of opportunity of some sort) was what would point to motive for a crime of passion/link him to Katelyn's disappearance/murder. As far as anyone knew, they were in a longtime relationship and engaged, he was out with his friends, she was home (busy/had to get up early), they had future plans together. She was 22 and they had been together six years. Her birthday was coming up. (But) she had been with him through h.s. and college. Her life was evolving and his was stagnant. She had enough "good" influence (school/work) around her to know she had outgrew him and his jealousy was holding her back. It's obvious from his interview he resented her "school friends", the forward looking/supportive people in her life. One piece of correspondence could be the crux, the power struggle. JC not "allowing" it and Katelyn basically saying you can't stop me and breaking up with him.

Nic said...

J: I called her father. The only thing that's not there is her cell phone, which is positive,

If nobody knew about a piece of mail she received/a letter of offer, etc., (document,) and it wasn't there to be discovered, and nobody knew that they broke up and she took his key back (but he retrieved it the night before,) then it would be positive that the "only thing" known to be missing was her phone.

Anonymous said...

There's always going to be "questionable" people wherever large groups of people congregate.

Anonymous said...

...but at least we know the 911 caller wasn't one of them!

Nic said...

J: I called her father. The only thing that's not there is her cell phone, which is positive,

Actually, the obvious 'thing' that wasn't there was Katelyn, as in the missing person he was calling about in the first place. He doesn't identify Katelyn as missing, just her phone. Could we interpret this to know that she's not missing? He knows where she is?

Peter Hyatt said...

Nic,

short answer, yes.

I called her father...here is what he said...this would have been natural and expected. Instead, he went to introduce something new (and important) into the scripting of the case.

He struggles and pauses and stutters because he is not speaking from experiential memory, but halting because when he goes into memory, what he wants to say is NOT THERE for him, thus, he disrupts the rapid process of transmission from the brain to the tongue.

THIS is stressful.

Even for sociopaths.

Ali said...

He says he went to her place at 7/7:30 BECAUSE she was supposed to get back from work at 7/7:30.

If she was supposed to be home at that time, shouldn't he be RELIEVED to see her car?

Yet when he gets there and sees her car he says he was worried BECAUSE she should be at work. Huh?

What a liar.

The question about what they talked about in the last hour that he saw her devolves rapidly into how much (mainly cleaning) he did for her. How much he did for her seems to be a common element inhis statements.

If she gave him instructions to burn her documents, why would she (seemingly disappointed)text that she wanted to be there for it? It doesn't make sense.

There is a interesting pronoun slip too. He says "her friends were my friends and my friends were her friends but instead of saying "OUR friend has a fire pit, he says MY friend.

I wonder what the friend/s know.

I agree withthe posters who think they had a fight and she dumped him.
That's why we see the self justification (I did everything for her) and the subtle disparagement.( she didn't make her bed, she didn't dothe vacuuming, she was consistently busy)

John Carter has guilt written all over him.


Ali said...

To the poster who suggested that he said "she stays by herself in a house" because he couldn't bring himself to say "she LIVES by herself". Well done. You are very perceptive.

HISG said...

Re: JC telling friend they had ingested magic mushrooms within minutes of her getting home

Is this leakage? Did he poison her? Did he tell friend they had taken magic mushrooms in case friend stayed longer and he were to witness Katelyn acting strange and disoriented from some kind of poison?

Violet said...

After reading that KM's remains were found in a bag, I believe we have been looking at this "burning of her documents" incorrectly. I think JC only said that to cover his tracks, in case someone witnessed him leaving with a bag...the bag KM was in.

Which means she never texted him about the documents to say that she wished she had been there to see them burn; he probably texted that to himself from her phone.

rjb said...

This isn't standard procedure. My husband has an IQ of 136 and has been a police officer for 15 years.

Habundia said...

I would add to that....if he put in the key and turned it around he would know if the door was locked or not.....so he wouldnt had have to check it first...he would have known when turning the key...if a door is locked you need to turn the key more then if it wasnt locked.....so when opening the door he would have known if it was locked or not

Habundia said...

He also said that it would be great if someone would know how to ping it when its turned of.....everyone knows that that isnt possible....thats why he probably turned the phone off himself
Tho about the pic that was send......couldnt it be found out where the picture was send? I mean couldnt they figure out at which tower the phone had pinged when sending the picture to his phone and where his phone pinged when his phone recieved the pic? That could give clearity about sending the pic.

Habundia said...

So if he did send her message from driveway....then it would be possible to see where his phone pinged when recieving the picture

Habundia said...

Question would be.....did she more often burned her document? Would she have given these documents in the past also to let them burn somewhere else (if she hadnt had a burn pit herself?) Or wouldnt itnbe something out of the ordernairy?

Habundia said...

Guess those LE people didnt got proper scholing about how to read statements, i totaly agree on you at seeing so much deception in this statement of his

Habundia said...

LE is to pride? They probably mean....LE is to AROGANT! Like many cops are out there....wanting to be the one figuring out the case so they can get promotion to higher functions....thats how it goes at police....so give away a case would mean no promotion to better funtion

Habundia said...

Thats why i wonder if phone records and where it pinged when sending messages (picture) was looked into