|Filming documentary on the death of Katelyn Markham|
If you want training in Statement Analysis, the case of Katelyn Markham is a good example of what you will do.
Even if you are behind the scenes analyzing cases, and never receive the slightest credit, the satisfaction of doing thorough work, and knowing that you may assist in bringing justice to victims and their families, is worth the investment of hard work and dedication it takes to reach the status of professional.
Amateur work is interesting, but without formal training, accuracy will falter and discredit brought to our science. Emotionalism has led to a myriad of false principles as people read into statements what they hope to see; rather than being enslaved to both the statement and principle. This discipline comes through much hard work and repetition, as well as being held accountable for our work.
The analysis of John Carter's 911 call showed deception and guilty knowledge of the case. He depersonalized her, distanced himself from her, and was deceptive about the location where he last saw her.
6 days later, he agreed to go on radio and it is here we find whether or not the analysis was accurate, or it was a failure.
We hold trainings for law enforcement, business, and private citizens. Better still is the study at home, with 12 months of ongoing support, moving from strong foundation work, to Advanced profiling, and the admittance to regular monthly training with some of our nation's top professionals working on cases for law enforcement around the country. This confidential work is extreme, but it produces accuracy and both strategy and tactics for the interview. Sign up is through the web site, and tuition payments are available, with CEUs awarded for continuing work, from the University of Maine, Orono for those in need of licensing credits.
Hyatt Analysis Services
for seminars or training from home
Psychologically, a guilty person has a need to put the victim on trial, find her guilty, for the purpose of self-justification. We see this in subtle ways by those who are hiding their actions.
In other settings, the greater the guilt, the more intense the reaction. Keep this in mind for this, and some upcoming cases.
Given that he has been indicated for deception in the phone call, any complaint against the victim could be an attempt to alleviate guilt by justifying her death. We expect rosy and emotional thoughts towards her, worried for her current state. Will we find this, or will the analysis o the 911 call be affirmed by this interview?
It began by asking him how he was doing. The expected here is "terrible, but what is Katelyn going through?" in some form.
In the 911 call, he did not use Katelyn's name a single time, sans when he had to because the 911 operator asked him.
He used extreme distancing language.
He refused to initially answer the question about location where he last saw her.
Then, he asked a compound question which allows the subject to pick and choose which to answer. Compound questions should be avoided. Although it will not highlight the interviewer, the analytical interview has the subject (the one with the information) doing 80% of the talking (or more).
Next, he tells us what did not happen, and when something did not happen, he tells us what he did not feel. This is deception indicated material. He should be telling us what happened and what he felt; as humans mark time on what happens, and not what does not happen. This 'negation' of information is critical and indicates artificial emotions presented.
Police should seek to learn if he was sending those text messages from her phone to himself.
By using "actually" he is not going along with the assumption made by the interviewer. Interviewers should ask short relevant questions and be quiet to let the flow of information continue.
Do you notice that he has still not used Katelyn's name?
Other than when he had to, he did not use it a single time in the 911 call, and he has not used it in this interview either. This is to affirm the analysis of the "problematic relationship" from the incomplete social introduction. It is also affirmed by his complaints about her.
TJ: Mm. It's kinda strange that Katelyn would leave without her keys, right? Did she leave her cell phone as well?
the photo may speak to jealousies. Remember, he introduced the word "deception", in the negative, in the 911 call. This may have been a final trigger for him.
This is an example of how not to conduct an interview, but how to draw attention to oneself, instead.
"We" or unity now exists in the context of not getting married. This is a powerful negative.
Past tense references speak to knowledge or belief she is dead; yet, we look for a past tense reference that is void of all past tense events to prove this point.
Listen to him: he has 'moved on' to nostalgia. This is a signal, though not strong, that she might be dead. We await further affirmation, but we can say that the processing has taken place.
This is to show emotion that is in the past tense. Emotion is uniquely revelatory of a human being. The emotion ends when the human life ends.
This is not an event that can be argued belongs in the past tense. This is an instinctive use of the past tense to describe the state of emotion that should never cease.
There is no greater proof of his knowledge or belief in her death than in "loved" here.
That they were together 6 years, and engaged to be married, without the finding of blood or a body, there should be no past tense emotional language.
1. Greeting, make friends
2. I am a good guy who does not break rules! I must call before 24 hours...(time was running against him)
3. I am the one searching for her (he had not)
Now here, he is the hero! He called police! This is instead of a denial.
Please note, that even without the understanding of Statement Analysis, that John Carter has a reason, only 6 days from her "disappearance" to justify himself.
It was not likely an intended death; but from a build up of emotions and a specific trigger that night.
foolish leading question.
he called himself a "person" and the 'kidnapper' a "person"; soft language. Guilty people do not wish to call themselves names.
He again complains about her; little details of complaint. It is in these little details that we see an entire build up where he puts her on trial, and condemns her; justifying her death. It is not so much a small complaint that matters;
It is a small complaint while she is missing that matters.
He praises police for failing to find her after only 6 days.
Did he finally use Katelyn's name?
He did not refer to Katelyn Markham here. He has successfully depersonalized her throughout. Here, it is a reference to her name; not to her as a person.
Not once has he expressed any concern for what she is experiencing while missing.
He's doing every thing "he can" which further affirms his limitations. This is both unnecessary to say, given the context, and revelatory into his thinking. He needs to persuade the audience that he is cooperating because he is not.
The radio interview, though poorly conducted, affirms the analysis of the 911 call.
Here, we are given a trial of sorts, where one should only speak of the most precious and lovely memories, holding on to hope, John Carter tells us how difficult Katelyn Markham was to deal with; from him having to deal with everything to her even being messy; she was a nuisance.
He revealed that he knows she is dead. He did not slip a single time into past tense; but did so regularly. How this is done is significant.
It is not only past tense references to events, but it is past tense references to Katelyn, as a human being, in the essence of "love."
Love seeks the highest good of its object. In depersonalizing Katelyn, he ends or 'cuts off' the love she had for her family and he ends the love her family had for her. Katelyn is no longer capable of loving, nor being loved, but there is something far worse in the context:
Katelyn is no longer worthy of the emotion of love.
This is the height of depersonalizing a victim.
He robs her of the ability to love others; just as he robs her family of the ability to love Katelyn. They "loved" her but they can no longer love her: just 6 days after she went missing.
This is the ultimate "guilty verdict" in the "trial" of this 'very stressed', and 'messy' victim who 'had to' have things done for her. Her death, in this sense, is her own fault as one who should have said how much he missed the little things about her, took the intimate 'little things' in life, and turned them against her. It was his guilty verdict in life, to quell the guilt within in.
In the 911 call, he offered no hope. "I can't find her anywhere" though he had not searched for her. Here we learn why: she is dead.
In the 911 call he spoke only of his own emotions. By telling us the color of his vehicle, he gave more information about his vehicle than he did Katelyn.
He showed no concern for her well being in the 911 call, and here he also showed no concern: because she is not in need of our concern.
He showed extreme distancing language in the 911 call: he refused to use her name and had to be forced into it by the operator. Here, he also refused her name and when it is finally uttered, it was no Katelyn of whom he referenced, it was her name.
This distancing language depersonalizes his victim.
She was not only a nuisance who put him out, she was not even a person worthy of a name.
John Carter shows guilty knowledge in the death of Katelyn Markham.