Saturday, September 10, 2016

John Carter: One Week After Katelyn Markham's Disappearance

This statement was made shortly after Katelyn Markham went missing by her then finance', John Carter.

The statement is only to understood in light of analysis conclusion of his 911 call and his radio interview. 

Those who seek to "see" into words that which is not in the words, often correct in hindsight, rely upon no repetitive principle to follow.  We see this recently in the statement of Ryan Lochte where "instinct" shows that he is deceptive.  The problem is that eventually, the unprincipled application of language that appears awkward will eventually lead the analyst into error.  I consider, too, Marion Jones' press conference in which body language analysis concluded veracity, where statement analysis showed deception. 

 Later, Jones confessed.  

The body language analysis is then deleted.  

When one does not work from principle, but instinct, error is inevitable.  The self restraint necessary for appropriate application is not often "exciting", as it requires years of careful study.  Yet because principle is used, if the rare error occurs, and it is not due to statement contamination, the error can be traced to either misapplication of principle, or outright ignoring of it, and the analysis corrected.  Thus, the "scientific" means just that:  repeated application resulting in repeated findings.  

The topic of 'leakage' within a statement is very close to the high level of error seen in psychological profiling.  Analysts claim to "see" in a statement what is not in the statement.  

Those experienced enough with, for example, the language of addiction, may say "this subject is bipolar", but it is not enough.  

Where, precisely, do we discern bipolar, and once found, can we use it on other statements?  

This often is enough to saddle the analyst to the strength of our science. If that doesn't work, a complex statement is then applied at no small risk:  discouragement can be overwhelming when one has worked long and hard.  

In a statement, we analyze it:

First, presupposing innocence.  This is not  a moral exercise, but a linguistic.  
If deception is indicated, we now analyze it a second time, with the presupposition of guilt, based upon the conclusion of the first analysis.  

If the conclusion is affirmed, we are now making progress.  

If a 'big picture' is known, such as in the case of Katelyn Markham's murder, we then may move to consideration of possible leakage.

This is where, based upon a prior conclusion additional content is sought.  

The analysis of the 911 call and the radio show indicated:

1.  John Carter had Guilty knowledge of what happened to Katelyn; 

2.  John Carter had a strong emotional need to be seen in a positive light, with a need to persuade police that he was not involved.  This is called, within analysis, as the "ingratiating factor" such as we saw when a little boy went missing and his father gave lengthy praise of police and official searchers for failing to find his son.  (DeOrr). The need to be seen in a positive light, itself, is unnecessary for the innocent. We sometimes even see a subtle justification of the crime by an attempt to blame or disparage the victim.  This is commonly seen in Shaken Baby Syndrome and various child abuse cases.  

3.  Affirmation that Katelyn was not going to be found alive.  This was not based upon a single indicator, but upon both emotional reference (non-dated) to Katelyn in the past tense, and the necessity of self correction by Carter.  He said her parents "loved" her, and then changed the verb tense to fit narrative.  

3.  Relationship Problem within a Domestic Homicide:  Acute Distancing Language from which he seeks to separate himself from her, though they were engaged, while she was missing. "Acute" is based upon both the call and the interview shortly afterwards.  It took emotional effort (suppression) to avoid using Katelyn's name and linguistically unifying himself with her.  

4.  Sensitivity Within Specific Time Period:  The deliberate withholding of information shortly after midnight when he left her apartment.  

Taking these conclusions, we now look at the words chosen by Carter shortly after reporting her missing.  

John Carter:

"I keep believing that if she is somewhere in the worse case scenario, that she fights her way out.  I keep wanting to believe that because...shes strong, I know she's strong.  So, she's got to manage to make her way out.

We may consider, from this above statement taken under consideration from the analysis conclusion, that Katelyn may not have met her death gently, or without a fight.  

This is why defense attorneys seek to silence their guilty clients.  


The Sheep said...

Very informative! Thank you.

trustmeigetit said...

I am finally sitting down to watch the newest Jonabenet Ramsey case on Dateline that was on last night.

Really hoping to see a post on it Peter.

Dying to hear some new opinions like the 911 operator...

Anonymous said...

trustmeigetit: Can you send me a link? I really want to see that!

Anonymous said...

I found this. This interview will air September 12th, this coming Monday. This is just a clip of the interview.

Anonymous said...

Just learning about this case now. Looked up old transcripts on CCN for it.
"DOCTOR BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR, DEAL BREAKERS Well, I think we have a very smart fiance and we have very smart public. You let the public know all the time, Nancy, that when someone goes missing the first 72 hours is incredibly critical and important. And sometimes when they go missing, it`s because there`s foul play.

This fiance is not stupid, he knows this. And his language is realistic and it reflects the reality of the situation. And John, you have nothing but my admiration for having come on this show. For being sincere in your attempts to find your fiance when you said nothing is more important than having her come back home, I truly believe you"

What a total idiot that woman is ! And her book is about "Deal Breakers: When to Work On a Relationship and When to Walk Away by Bethany Marshall"

Alexandra said...

I just watched the Dr Phil/Burke video clip. Ya think maybe the smile is duper's delight? That he pulled one over on everyone and enjoyed watching Patsy run around frantic and enjoyed all the attention?

Anonymous said...

Alexandra, no I don't think that. He was only 8 or 9 when his sister was murdered. He was a little kid, and I hope he isn't a suspect in the murder. It's been 20 years, so I don't mind his smiling/humor/wonderment while answering questions about something happened when he was 8.

Anonymous said...

I smile just like that when talking to my therapist about my own early-childhood sexual abuse. I know I do it! and it serves a few things: 1) Make the conversation easier/lighter for the counselor, 2) Hide my own pain, 3) Show that I'm "okay" - avoid embarrassing revelation of actual emotion (tears, crying, etc.) 4) Avoid reaction from professional that might encroach on me personally (prescribed drugs, recommended therapy, residential treatment, and on and on).

trustmeigetit said...


From the latest review of the JonBenet case

Starts saying Jon is in his 70's.

First thing they show him saying with nothing shown about what he was asked

Jon: "Here's a child and she's not breathing and so.....I was just screaming, I was angry, I was angry at God... But I didn't cry"

***Distancing still with "heres a child" and I found it odd he says he was angry twice but days after told the world he wasn't angry


Interviewer: "What do you remember about that morning and about the fun things you were doing that day"

Burke: "I just remember her falling on the bike and sitting on it"

Interviewer: "when was the last time you saw JohnBenet alive?"

(Body language people...As he is asked this, he has a long pause while facing and looking straight at the man where he just stares at him and then he turns sideways slumps down and sits facing away from him to answer)

Burke: " the car....tired and laying down"

***Burke then talks about the morning. Said his mom rushed in, turned the lights on and looked around and left and that he stayed in bed. This is odd to me. My son is 8. If there's a commotion going on, he comes right in to see what's going on. If she was screaming and he just sat there playing it leads me to believe he has often ignored concerning crys or screams and this would confirm prior abuse in this home to me.

***He mentioned lights being turned. But being that it was still dark would this make sense since I know I hate when this happens when I asleep and I think it would alert me and I may mention. Thoughts?

***It was odd to me that she didn't speak to him. If I had more than one kid and one was missing I would immediately ask the other child just in case he saw or heard anything. So to me that's still a red flag. Like they were just putting on their show. Like with the McCanns. Just leaving the other kids sleeping.

Burke is then asked how he finds out what is going on

Burke: "dad coming in and seeing I was awake.....playing with my micro machine...and telling me that JonBenet was missing"

***present tense language?? Or acceptable as a trauma experience??

Interviewer: "what were some of your worries and concerns"

Burke: "I worried about how JonBenet was..I was worried that we wouldn't find her"

***he is now still talking about that morning but now speaks in past tense.

He now talks about going to a friends house later that morning...

Burke: "and I thought Jonbenet was gonna be there....I thought they'd found her. So I came in, felt know, almost received. Then I saw everyone was sad...then my dad told me that JonBenet is inheaven"

***Burke constantly says her name. Unlike the parents...

Interviewer: "what did you do"

Burke "started crying...sobbing, kind of building up to a cry"

Anonymous said...

Plus, why NOT smile and laugh about insane bizarro unexplainable events that happened in one's early childhood?!?!

trustmeigetit said...



Pastry is then talking about that morning right outside JonBenets room... Not sure if this has been analyzed before but including. Date says 1998

Patsy: "I was fussing around there with some clothes, yah know glanced at her door and the door was closed, I just started down stairs. There were these pieces of paper lying on one of the (couldn't understand this word) of the stairs. Started reading the first couple lines.... And somewhere it said we have your daughter.... It clicked yah know.... Your daughter. And I just bounded back up the steps and threw her door open and she was not in her bed"

Didn't put ownership to "glanced or going down stairs. Use of doors often related to sexual abuse.

They spoke to her Dr.

Dr Beuf: "the time I was her pediatrician I saw absolutely no signs of sexual abuse, I had no suspicion of it"

Interviewer: "nothing once so ever"

Dr Beuf: ".....In Jonbenets case, I saw absolutely no evidence"

^^^^On a prior time a clip was on Nancy Grace and his response then was....

Woodward: When you talked with the police, did they ask you about sexual abuse of JonBenet?

Beuf: Yes, of course they did.

Woodward: What did you tell them?

Beuf: I told them absolutely, categorically no. There was absolutely no evidence - either physical or historical.

Woodward: Thirty visits in 3 years. He said her parents were good about getting her in and it wasn't an abnormal amount of visits.

Do you think JonBenet was sexually abused?

Beuf: I do not think she was sexually abused. I am convinced she wasn't sexually abused.

trustmeigetit said...

I DVR'd it...

So not sure there a link yet. But some highlights are below

The Sheep said...

"... if she is somewhere in the worse case scenario..."

He can't bring himself to specifically say "being held by her abductor". Is he avoiding specific language because he knows at the time she isn't being held by force, or because he knows she was held by force? Is the "scenario" like his "story"?

trustmeigetit said...

Burke is going to be on Dr Phil.

But there was this transcript about a part of it that I also addres above about Burke not leaving his room. Dr Phil found it odd as well.

"Somebody comes in your room and flashlight looks around," Dr. Phil questions in the clip. "Your mother's been in there yelling, 'Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Where's my baby?' And you never get up and say, 'What is going on here?' "

Burke remained in his room before and after JonBenét's body was found in the family's Boulder, Colorado, basement, with a cord around her neck and duct tape over her mouth.

the clip, Burke says, "I guess I kind of like to avoid conflict or, I don't know, I guess I just felt safer there."

"I'm not the worried type," he continues, chuckling. "I guess part of me doesn't want to know what's going on."

Dr. Phil responds, referencing the suspicion the Ramsey family long faced, "You, of course, know that critics would say you weren't curious because you already knew.

"You didn't have to get up and check because you knew exactly what had happened."

For the rest we have to wait until the 12th.

I do not think he was responsible and still believe the parents are but I don't be live he has no idea.

Anonymous said...

If someday Burke wants to tell, I mean really tell, what he knows, and IF that implicates his parents, does he now, 20 years later, have to worry about getting thrown in jail for not telling what he knew/saw as a little kid? I mean, can he get in legal trouble if he tells everything he knows about something that happened when he was 8? By "getting in trouble with the law", I meant: FOR NOT TELLING 'TILL NOW. That's the thing that worries me.

The Sheep said...

Yes, that ^ seems like the reaction of a child on the autism spectrum.

Anonymous said...

my opinion - He killed her because he is gay and saw no other way out after 6 years in a relationship. Easier to kill than to tell the truth.