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.
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.
"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.