Friday, December 2, 2016

Katelyn Markham Interview: Part 4


Anonymous said...

Europe burning? 5
This is some scary news:

Nic said...

That was great, Peter thank you.

Regarding your analysis of the use of "person" in Katelyn's boyfriend's radio interview, I found it notable that he also said the "person" watched her. And in regards to all the places JC looked for Katelyn, which were very limited, i.e., "going by" her house and her work, IMO it is also reflective of what the "person" would learn about Katelyn if, unbeknownst to her, they were "watching" her. That "everywhere" in Katelyn's life would have been i.e., home, work and school and that they would not have to look outside of "everywhere" because she didn't venture outside of those places. In other words, she was trustworthy but that the "person" watching her, wasn't the trusting type. They would be the jealous type and suffocating type. The type of person who clutches so tightly, that if, i.e., Katelyn, were a bar of soap, she would pop out of their clutching grip (distance herself). The most dangerous time for a woman coming out of an abusive relationship is right after she breaks-up/leaves her abuser.


Nic said...

He also said Katelyn was "consistently" busy, which I thought was odd, in the context of why he was the one who always had to do things for her.

The word consistent is usually used to describe performance levels and standards. His use of the word "consistently" makes me wonder if he wished Katelyn would fail/resented her successes. Or, if she consistently applied herself at school and work and she was excelling, maybe he felt she was "failing" in her relationship with him (disparaging/blaming). Or that delegating menial jobs, like shredding confidential waste, stirred misogynistic type feelings in him, or made him think "she" was out of control and needed to slow down, (disparaging) when the reality was, he was not in control [of her]. jmo

I wonder why LE didn't/doesn't pursue Katelyn's case more intensely.

John Mc Gowan said...


Sherri Papini

Intriguing dropped pronoun


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
9 mins ·

Some people wonder how Sherri Papini could have caused herself to look beaten, burned and branded if indeed she was not truly abducted. Self-inflicted wounds are not that hard to achieve and can look really terrible. I bruise easily and one day after roundhouse kicking and slamming my arms against a padded post at karate, I looked like I had been horribly beaten, bruises all up and down my arms and legs. I was asked if everything was okay at home and if I had been in an auto accident! But, I was really just having fun practicing martial arts. Pinching also causes bruising. Also, one can use ice and salt and burn one's skin and that can look really bad (and actually can cause serious damage). Branding? They didn't mean like a cattle brand with an iron in a fire. They mean a tattoo; so a small tattoo isn't torture and can easily be retouched to make a different look in the future. Not saying Mrs. Papini did any of this to herself; the evidence of the damage to her body has to be analyzed so as to determine if it could be self-inflicted or not. I just want to point out it can be done and look quite terrible.

Katrina said...

Pat Brown, That's brilliant. Truly brilliant to assume Sherri managed to hide herself from searchers for 3 weeks, inflict wounds including breaking her own nose. Particularly against the backdrop of a psycho named Gamble with his warehouse full of captivity containers being central to the story. AND HOW DOES PAT BROWN KNOW IT WAS A TATTOO AND NOT A BRAND? What is her evidence for that? Did she just make that up? Pat Brown is not only moronic to suggest someone held themselves captive and beat themself and broke their own nose, Pat Brown is moronic. Pat Brown lacks knowledge as well as intelligence. Asking her opinion is like pulling a random person off the street and asking them to solve a case.

Katrina said...

Also Keith has red flags of being an abuser. One thing I noticed, his getting "over-emotional/crying over cliches that do not normally evoke deep emotion from others. For example "Mom's DO cry when theyre THIS happy!" (boohoohoohoo--tears from Keith). My son said "You can tell me anything Dad (parentifying the child) (tears from Keith--boohoohoohoo)". "Yes, yes we did a family snuggle" (boohoohoohoo)." "She hid her chain under her shirt, now I dont know what others think about that (bc Im a psychopath and do not have emotions) (boohoohoohoo)".

Anonymous said...

how do you really feel at her, Katrina?? just kiddin'

I agree with you that it is really a stretch to do all this self injury stuff over all this time but I also wonder about weirdo hubby and the Go Fund Me.

Anonymous said...

Not saying Mrs. Papini did any of this to herself; the evidence of the damage to her body has to be analyzed so as to determine if it could be self-inflicted or not. I just want to point out it can be done and look quite terrible."

dropped pronoun?

John Mc Gowan said...

Note how Psychologically she attaches herself to her words with the strong uses of the pronoun "I". She is owning what she is saying. Then we have this

"Not saying Mrs. Papini did any of this to herself; the evidence of the damage to her body has to be analyzed so as to determine if it could be self-inflicted or not. I just want to point out it can be done and look quite terrible.

Why does she drop the pronoun "i" here. She is not attaching herself Psychologically to this part of her statement as in other parts, she distances herself. Does she believe it's a hoax, and that's why she won't own this sentence? She then picks the pronoun i" in the next sentence making the dropped pronoun all the more significant.

Nic said...


She is not assigning commitment to the negation, "'not'" saying Mrs. Papini did any of this", to herself, or anybody. :0) But then she goes on to say I just want to point out it can be done and look quite terrible.

Or not. :0)

I'm thinking Pat Brown is voicing doubt by illustrating that anything is possible and that maybe she needs to be convinced on some level that what happened to Mrs. Papini wasn't a hoax.


Katrina said...

John, Yes I think you are correct, Pat Brown feels that it is a hoax and the woman did much or all of the injury to herself.

I need to state something now which I hope local LE in the Papinni case will become aware of:

During last night's 2020, Keith leaks out words that show he has in depth knowledge of the Ariel Castro case and specifically the experiences of the victims.

When Keith begins describing the "techniques" Sherri used for survivial during her captivity, he says "like taking the kids to school" (he does not expand what he means by this rather "changes to a different survival technique). He then says (paraphrased) "Sherri would roll up a blanket and pretend it was our little one and rock the blanket back and forth".

Keith's reference of Sherri "taking the kids to school" as a survival technique is a directly leaks the fact that he is thinking of what one of Ariel Castro's victims (the one who had his child during captivity) used to do to help her and her daughter mentally survive which was she set up a room in Castro's house as a "school classroom" and would "take her daughter to school" every morning by pretending with the daughter they were walking to school, even saying such things as "OK now we're crossing the street, we're almost to school" and all of this would be done within the confines of Castro's house. Notice Keith does not expand on what he means by Sherri "taking the kids to school" (during captivity as a survival technique) probably because he realizes how ridiculous it will sound considering there was no kid there to take to school.

"Her poor face" Keith has said of Sherri's beaten and bruised face. There is sensitivity here in the word "face". He doesn't say "poor Sherri" but rather "her poor face". This is very important to him that it was her face had bruises on it. I immediately thought again of Ariel Castro's victim Michelle Knight who has spoken about how she was the most severely mistreated by Castro including the fact that (surprisingly considering all the horrible things he did) Castro would hit Michelle Knight in the face...he would not hit the other 2 captives in the face. This to me, is surprising, but it is a detail about the case that has been considered important to people who have examined the case.

What this indicates is that Keith may admire people like Ariel Castro and want to do the kinds of things he did. The fact that he seems closely linked to an individual who has a warehouse of captivity containers would seem to support this. I do not think Sherri participated in a "hoax" or self-inflicted the injuries, because she seems to want NO ATTENTION for fact she has not allowed the media to release a picture of any of her injuries, and if she wanted attention, she would have.

As far as "chains" also this reminded me of the Castro case...where Castro was big on chaining his victims although they were confined through being locked in, they also had their "chains".

If I were police, I would not ignore this fact that Keith has seems to have indepth knowledge of the Castro case considering his wife was also "kidnapped" and experienced many of the same dynamics as the Castro victims and allegedly(according to Keith) used some of the same survival techniques although the situations and length of time held are quite different.

In my opinion, this is supporting evidence that he, Keith, is responsible for Sherri's "abduction" and torture.

Hey Jude said...

Peter, thank you - the videos are excellent.

I have believed since the early days that Madeleine died in the apartment as the result of an accident and that the parents covered it up because Madeleine's death was either due to negligence, or to Kate.

I hope you might look at the Gasper statements sometime - I have difficulty in believing speculation arising from those statements, mainly because the Gaspers left such troubling concerns unaddressed until Madeleine disappeared.