Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Nathan Carman: Missing Mother Case Analyzed




Nathan Carman was found by the US Coast Guard after one week at sea.  His mother was not found.  

Question for Analysis:

Does Nathan Carman truthfully report what happened?

Several years ago  Nathan Carman was Person of Interest in his grandfather's murder but was not arrested.  Grandfather left millions to his four daughters, one of whom was subject's mother.  


Subject:  Nathan Carman is reported to have Aspergers.  In language, this is similar to adult autism and will impact language, particularly in view of emotions.  A lack of emotional language should be considered acceptable.  Analysis looks for possible deception via withheld information.  With Asperger's, there is an intention to be understood in communication, meaning that with deception, there is an intention to deceive.  

Also with Asperger's we often find childhood history of violence.  Many males diagnosed with Asperger's are above average intelligence.  

I.               Transcripts
II.             Transcripts with Analysis
III.           Conclusion

I.               Transcripts 

NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman. 
CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  yes I hear you

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”


NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom, were fishing at Block Canyon.  And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment, I looked and saw a lot of water. I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel I brought up the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat’s (or just)  dropped out from under my feet.  Uh, when I saw the life raft I did not see my mom. Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet. 

NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her. 

CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon. 

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?)

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.

II.            Transcripts with Analysis


NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman. 
CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston, Ok

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  yes I hear you

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”

This is our most important question, “What happened?”

We consider that with Asperger’s there may be a reduction in emotional language, but often within the language is logic; sometimes a very strong intellect propelled by logic.  We expect him to tell us immediately, what happened, with only a brief introduction, such as, "My mom and I went fishing, and we had an accident, and..." 

NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom,

Here we have an emphasis upon being only two persons present for the event.  With the emphasis, we should consider the possibility of a third person on the mind of the subject.  This could be an eye witness, or someone who may known him well.  His need to emphasize is not due to Asperger’s, as there is no repetitive language following this. 

Note that it is unnecessary for him to clarify that the two “people” were “myself and my mom” here.  “Mom” is “my mom” while going out fishing which shows he viewed her positively at this time (while fishing).  “Mom”, repeated, increases the sensitivity. 

Regardless, he is, in the least, thinking of a third person, whether it be an eye witness, or someone important to him. 

The order changes which means change of priority.  Mom and I” to “myself and my mom”, changing the order.


were fishing at Block Canyon.

He begins with the (1) people, (2) activity and (3) location rather than “My mom fell overboard…” or anything like it.  “We had an accident…” or any direct answer would have been expected, but is not here.  
The introduction is ‘slow’ in pace, which suggests that he does not want to get to ‘what happened’.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements are heavily weighted in the introduction.  The deceptive part of the ‘story’ is stressful, therefore, the subject often avoids going directly to it.  We measure the ‘pace’ of an account and note that this one, in particularly, is very slow.  


 And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment,

“And” :  There was a pause between sentences.  “And” when at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.  The slow pace continues, avoiding getting to the direct information about what happened to the missing person.  This is often associated with psychological guilt; not always guilt meaning remorse, but fear of being caught.  

“There was a funny noise 

This is reported in passive voice.  Passivity is used appropriately when one does not know the source, but it is also used to conceal responsibility.  What is concerning here is the combination of the passivity with the descriptive term:  funny noise.”

He describes the noise as “funny” while using passivity.  This will cause us to ask if he caused this “funny” noise.  He does not report an emergency, nor something out of control.  The passivity would be expected with an explosion, not a “funny noise.”

He is likely telling the truth about hearing the noise, but he may have caused what happened to make the noise, while avoiding telling us the source of the noise, or what made it "funny" to him.  


 I looked and saw a lot of water.

He does not say “I saw a lot of water”, but he “looked” first.  This is akin to story telling and it continues to slow down the pace.  He does not tell us where he looked, or what he looked at.  This, too, is akin to story telling and indicates he is withholding information.  He did not say “I looked at the noise”, but that he “looked” and saw “a lot of water”, not an engine issue. 

This is two separate actions in his description.  It also avoids telling us what caused him to see a lot of water (note the passivity previously).  This separate action (in writing) further suggests that he caused the “funny noise” to have happened.  If so, we should expect more passivity in his language, which would remove him from the responsibility.   

He does not say that the noise caused water to fill up.  A “lot of water” may be his mother overboard.  Why was the noise “funny”?  Was it the sound of ‘gurgling’ or drowning?

This appears to be when he was looking outside the boat, where there is a lot of water.  Did he watch her drown or struggle?


I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel

Self censoring is when one stops himself, mid sentence.  The audio is difficult but he may have stopped himself here. 
He does not say “I brought”,  but “I was bringing” which shows ongoing action, (lengthening time)  rather than a single, ended action.   He soon will use the complete past tense, “I brought” below, so it is not his pattern or habit. 

Note “the reel” is not “a reel” and since he has not introduced a reel, it may be that they did not actually fish as this point, but something else took place.  

We may consider that his mother may have been impacted by the line; controlled by him, her neck, etc. 


I brought the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat just dropped out from under my feet.

These are two separate actions. One is complete while the other is ‘on going’ or lengthening of time.  This is another indicator of missing information in his answer.

I brought the safety stuff forward” is a complete action.  This, while there was “a lot of water”; yet, he then goes to another activity in which there is no completion, but an elongation of time with “I was bringing…”  In this part of his statement, his mother is missing.  He does not mention her here, and it is likely that she was already in the water. 


The focus:  He only brought “one” of the safety bags.  This may show intention to save his own life knowing there was no intention on saving two lives; the “two people” he began his statement with.   He did not bring “safety bags” but only one

Regarding the “boat just dropped out from my feet” the audio is not clear, but it is, also, passive voice. 
  We must consider that he knew the cause of the event.


 Uh, when I saw the life raft I did not see my mom.


Here, he speaks to time, not an event. He does not say “I saw the life raft” but “when”, which focuses upon time, not action.  This, too, suggests missing information.   
He reports not when he got to the life raft, but when he ‘saw’ it.  He reports what he did not see.

Negation:  Truthful people tell us what happened, what they saw, what they heard, etc.  In an open statement, when one tells us what they did not see, we must be on alert for deception.  He does not say he looked for her, only that he did not see her. 


 Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet. 

He offers no concern for her safety.  Even with Asperger’s there should be an element of concern, perhaps with low emotional wording.  Instead, the focus is upon “I” and he continues about himself: 


NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her. 

Here we have deception.  He addresses the element of time, which speaks to planning: “after” he got his “bearings.”  He wants us to believe he did not have his bearings, but this is not what he said.  “After I got my bearings” presupposes the loss thereof, but this is akin to story telling, not reliving a traumatic event from experiential memory.

“Bearings” speaks to disorientation, and its location in the account is “logical”, which, in analysis, is likely to be artificial placement of emotions for the purpose of story telling.  It takes time to process emotions and here, even with Asperger’s, it appears to be edited into his account. 

He did not look for her.  He looked “around.”  Consider also the size of the boat with this expression. 

He wishes to be seen as someone who did “search” with “whistling, calling, and looking around” specifically, but it is not accurately stated. 

This, too, suggests that he has a need to be seen in a favorable light; something associated with guilt. 


CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon. 

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

This indicates he has the coordinates, just not the “exact” coordinates. 

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?)

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.


III.          Analysis Conclusion

                               Deception Indicated

Nathan Carman is deliberately withholding information about what happened to his mother. 

He does not truthfully report events, skips over time, and shows a focus upon himself, rather than his mother. 

His wording reveals specific delay, associated with guilty knowledge, and it reveals intent. 

The form of his answer shows a lengthy introduction, statistically linked with deception. 


If Mr. Carman is offered a polygraph and the polygraph is conducted using his own language, he is not likely to pass. 

The interview strategy should consist of his own wording, and focus upon the gaps of time; not upon the relationship with his mother, due to Asperger's.  

Nathan Carman is judicially innocent in this case, and in the unsolved murder of his grandfather.   

When one speaks publicly, there is a presupposition that the audience is free to believe him, or not to believe him.  

8 comments:

Anonymous said...


Bonnie Blue:
So this man was reported to have been a suspect in his Grandfather's murder. His Grandfather was murdered a few months after his wife (Grandma) died of cancer. He left his 4 daughters, (one being Nathan Carman's Mother), a $42million inheritance. Now
Nathan Carman's Mother is gone. This is very suspicious!


http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/09/28/man-who-lost-mother-in-boat-sinking-once-considered-suspect-in-g/21482710/

lynda said...

Nathan seems to have the same kind of "luck" Davey has...isn't it great that the 2 people that stood between him and millions are now dead..one murdered and one suspicious? Nobody is that lucky..oh wait..Davey is!

Anonymous said...

ot

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/index.html?sr=fbcnni092916obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall0401AMVODtopLink&linkId=29325273

Obama: Why I won't say 'Islamic terrorism'

Trigger said...

Nathan Carman has too much to loose if he takes a polygraph. Why should he take the risk when his "story" makes sense to him?

A machine won't make him change his story or admit to any criminal behavior.

He is a rich man now.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

lynda said...
Nathan seems to have the same kind of "luck" Davey has...isn't it great that the 2 people that stood between him and millions are now dead..one murdered and one suspicious? Nobody is that lucky..oh wait..Davey is!
September 29, 2016 at 1:57 AM


The analysis is somewhat 'boring' to the untrained eye, so the conclusion is plain.

I knew he was named a POI in his grandfather's death from reading his attack on it, but didn't know they were millionaires. Perhaps we are looking at the world's oldest motive.

Davey may be obsessed with fame, but it is fortune, and its powers, beneath it.

Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Trigger,

with millions, he will have a high powered attorney now. If he insists on taking a polygraph, expect to hear his diagnosis as a defense.

Peter

TiffGGGG said...

"A source confirmed to WBZ-TV’s sister station WFSB in Hartford that Nathan Carman was once “a primary person of interest” in that murder. Windsor police Capt. Thomas LePore said Wednesday that the case is still open and that Carman remains a “person of interest.”

In the course of investigating the killing, authorities said in court papers that they found Carman’s handwritten notes on making explosives, seized a shotgun and other weaponry from his Middletown, Connecticut, apartment, and learned from family members that he once held another child “hostage” with a knife.

They also said Carman had had several alarming episodes while he was a high school student in Connecticut. Those episodes were not explained."

Wow, is all I have to say!

lynda said...

44 million bucks? This guy will never see the inside of a jail cell. It would be interesting to know if this uber rich family "paid" for the Asperger's diagnosis so the guy was socially acceptable so to speak, as opposed to what he may really be...your run of the mill psychopath.