Analysis Question: Did missing 22 year old, Katelyn Markham's fiance, John Carter, issue a strong denial in her disappearance?
Answer: he did not.
What follows is Statement Analysis of the Transcripts from the Nancy Grace Show.
Statement Analysis is in bold type. What we look for is the subject to tell us that he did not do it. This would be a strong and reliable (percentage wise) denial.
1. It should be first person singular.
This means that any dropped pronoun, or the use of the plural pronoun should be discounted as unreliable. It does not mean that the subject is guilty, but it does mean that the subject has not told us that he didn't do it. If he does not tell us he didn't do it; we cannot say he didn't do it.
2. It should be past tense, since the event took place in the past.
This means that any statement that says "I would never..." is not to be considered reliable. It does not mean he did it, it means only that he has not told us he did not do it. Over time, given many opportunities to say "I didn't do it" which are not taken, becomes a strong indicator of guilt, especially where it is the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the living room, and everyone is waiting for an answer.
3. Event Specific.
"I did not cause Katelyn's disappearance" would be first person singular (I), past tense (did not, or didn't) "cause Katelyn's disappearance" would be specific to the question. If someone says of a dead victim, "I didn't harm her..." the word "harm" is noted as minimizing language. This is why we need the specific denial. "I did not harm her..." when someone has been found dead, is not reliable.
Katelyn's fiance is the one with information, not Nancy Grace.
This means that the information is held within him, and not within her, nor her guests. The focus should be on him, and this would give us the largest sample of which to work from.
Analysis question: Did the fiance issue a reliable denial in the disappearance of Katelyn?
Please see previous analysis, including analysis of the 911 call. Note that no editing of either the questions nor the responses has been done; only that of extra audio clips.
NANCY GRACE, HOST: Breaking news tonight, live, Fairfield. A beautiful young bride vanishes without a trace, 22-year-old art student set to marry, Katelyn Markham, disappears from her own condo midnight.
Bombshell tonight. Only clue to the missing bride, a mysterious text the bride sends midnight. Tonight, where`s 22-year-old bride Katelyn Markham?
GRACE: Good evening. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us. Bombshell tonight. A beautiful young bride vanishing without a trace. Only clue we have tonight, a mysterious text message the bride sends around midnight. Tonight, where is 22-year-old bride Katelyn Markham?
GRACE: We are live tonight, taking your calls. This bride-to-be, set to walk down the aisle, disappears around midnight, last seen around 11:30 PM. She sends a mysterious text message, then never heard from again. When police go into her townhome where she lived, everything looked pristine and perfect -- no theft, no burglary, no forced entry, nothing amiss whatsoever.
Straight out to Karin Johnson with WLWT. Karin, you`re there at Katelyn`s home. What can you tell us?
KARIN JOHNSON, WLWT CORRESPONDENT: You know, Nancy, this is a bizarre case. I can tell you that she went missing just days before her 22nd birthday. Family and friends spent her birthday searching for her instead of celebrating her birthday.
GRACE: You are right there outside of her home. I`m very curious about the series of events, the timeline. Karin Johnson joining us tonight live, WLWT. Tell me exactly how that timeline went down.
JOHNSON: Well, Nancy, I can tell you from talking to her fiance, John Carter -- he tells me he left the home between 11:00 and 11:30 Saturday night. He then received a text message from her. It was dated 12:52. I saw the text message. It was just a picture of herself. That was 12:52 Sunday morning. She was supposed to go to work. She never showed up for work Sunday. And he went to her house between 7:00 and 7:30 Sunday night, and that`s when he says her car was there but she was not inside her townhome.
GRACE: OK, hold on. Let`s just back it up just a moment. To Kelsey Cano, staff reporter with "Hamilton Journal News." Kelsey, thank you for being with us. I`m hearing the timeline from Karin Johnson as set forth by the fiance. And that text message -- Liz, am I seeing the text message? Is that what was sent? Liz, that`s a yes/no. OK. If we have the text message, let me see it.
Kelsey Cano, so the text message didn`t say anything, Kelsey, it was just a picture of her, the bride, sent to her fiance?
KELSEY CANO, "HAMILTON JOURNAL NEWS" (via telephone): Yes. To my knowledge, he showed the media at a search. And it was just a picture of a picture that she sent to John.
GRACE: Wait! Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait! Now, hold on right there. Kelsey, you`re saying -- first of all, Karin Johnson said it was a picture. But you`re saying it was a picture of a picture?
CANO: Correct. It was a picture of a picture.
GRACE: Oh, right now -- that`s just -- that`s not making any sense to me.
CANO: Right.
GRACE: She sends him a picture of a picture around midnight, is that correct?
Please note that phone calls (and now text messages) often tie a subject to the crime scene. Every mention of communication in a statement is important. The cell phone will likely play a big part of this investigation.
CANO: Right. John actually received the photo, the text message, at 12:52 AM the day that she was reported missing. And her phone was actually turned off at 12:45. So her phone was turned off before he received the picture. So normal delay with sending picture messages over a phone, but he received the picture after the phone was turned off.
GRACE: You know, I didn`t realize a normal delay for a photo was seven minutes. But you know, let`s get all the answers because right now joining us, special guest, is the fiance of bride-to-be Katelyn Markham. He was with her just before she goes missing. John Carter, thank you for being with us.
CARTER (via telephone): Thank you.
GRACE: John, did she normally send a picture of a picture? Why didn`t she snap herself and send it?
CARTER: I`m sorry. Here`s what the situation was. She had actually sent -- after I had left her house, she had actually sent me a couple of actual text messages about things that she wanted me to do to help her out because she had to work and go to school so much. Then -- she normally sends me pictures of things. Her boss at her internship is a really good photographer, and he took some pictures of her that were really, really good and she wanted to show them to me. And that was one of them.
Please note: "I'm sorry" This is often found in guilty party's statements.
Please note that "actually" is a word used when describing two or more things, in comparison.
Please note that the word "left" is included which indicates missing information; 70% due to time, rushing, etc, but 30% critically withheld information. Note that "actually" is repeated (including "actual") which we do not know what he is comparing this to. This is missing information that would need to be addressed by a follow up question.
Note the inclusion of "normal" as often an indication that something is anything but "normal."
He introduced "her boss" into the discussion which should lead to questions about the boss, seeking to learn what their relationship was like; good, professional, personal, jealousy provoking, and so on.
GRACE: OK, I`ve got a question.
CARTER: It was one of the pictures that he had taken.
By repetition, the boss is important to the topic. Police should explore nature of relationship.
GRACE: I got a question, John Carter. You were just there in the townhome with her. Why didn`t she just show you the pictures? Why did she text you a picture of a picture?
CARTER: I mean, I don`t know. They were up in her room. You know, she just -- she likes to send me pictures all the time. She always has.
This was a good question. "I mean" is a stall tactic to think, much like "um" that we all use. "You know" also pauses, but shows an acute awareness of the interviewer at this very point.
GRACE: You said that she also sent you a couple text messages of things she wanted you to do. What did she want you to do?
CARTER: Well, to be honest, she had some legal documents, like bills, and like her school schedule, things like that. And she wanted me to dispose of them. And the series of text messages that she sent to me -- I had sent her after I had gotten rid of them. I just said, I got rid of them. They`re all gone. And she wanted me to burn them. So it`s, like, I burnt the message -- or I burnt your documents. And she was, like, Oh, I kind of wanted to be there. And I was, like, Well, I have documents I need to burn, so you can be there when I burn mine. And then she just wrote back a message saying, like, Oh, OK. And then she sent me the picture message, and then that was it.
Take notice that he has begun with a pause, "well" and then says "to be honest" which indicates that he is not always honest. Note also the topics introduced: legal documents, bills, school schedule. She sent text messages telling him to "dispose" of them. This word "dispose" is unusual. Does she want him to throw out bills?
We throw out things, but when "dispose" entered his language, it means that whatever these things were, they were sensitive; that is, important.
Note how often "burn" enters his language. The repetition shows sensitivity.
He "got rid" of them.
This is critical information and will raise concern about "disposing" of Katelyn.
Note what he says: "she can be there"
These are all unusual sentences and have raised more questions than answered. Nancy Grace sensed how unusual it was:
GRACE: OK, I don`t understand what`s happening. Why were you burning documents?
CARTER: Because she has -- she was going to be moving out of her house. She didn`t want to be bringing all these documents with her, and they were just old, old stuff -- like old bank statements, old things like that. All of her current bank statements, everything like that -- they`re all still in the house. They`re all still there and everything like that, so...
Please note that it is not that she is moving out, but that she was going to be moving. Is she no longer going to be moving? This is a past tense indicator which suggests that he now either knows or believes that she is not coming back and will not be moving.
Documents are often shredded if there is concern about identity theft, especially if either worked at an office. Here, the burning is odd.
GRACE: OK. All right. Now, let me ask you this. I understand that you have taken a polygraph?
CARTER: Yes.
GRACE: When did you take a polygraph?
CARTER: The second day she went missing, I believe.
Please note that "I believe" reduces commitment to the answer. If he only believes he took the polygraph then we cannot conclusively say that on the 2nd day she went missing (depending upon if he considers after 12AM a day) unless he says so with conviction.
Why would he add "I believe" to the dating of the polygraph? Would he not know exactly what he did and when he did it in such a critical situation? The adrenaline flows and instincts become sharp under such circumstances. This is concerning.
GRACE: Did you pass the polygraph?
CARTER: Yes.
GRACE: What questions did police ask you?
CARTER: If I knew where she was, and if I know anything pertaining to her disappearance.
These are the two common questions normally asked in a disappearance. He has not given a sensitivity indicator about taking or passing the test; but about when.
Why?
Why would he reduce commitment to the timing of the polygraph?
GRACE: Everyone, we are talking about a beautiful young bride, Katelyn Markham, just 22 years old. She`s 5-3, 130 pounds, brown hair with blond highlights, beautiful green eyes. She disappears from her own townhome around midnight. The only clue we have is a mysterious text message she sent just before she disappears.
I want to go to John Lucich, criminal investigator, president of Eforensics. John, the delay is disturbing. The message was sent at 12:45 AM -- wait. Excuse me. Her phone was cut off at 12:45 AM. How can a picture then be sent at 12:52 AM?
JOHN LUCICH, FMR. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: Right. You know, there`s -- it doesn`t make sense, Nancy, and there`s a lot of things that don`t make sense with this. But what they`re going to have to do is take a look -- you know, it`s going to come down to network congestion. I cannot believe that there`s any type of network congestion at that time. That cell phone`s going to be key because number one, just because it was sent from her cell phone doesn`t mean that she sent that text or those pictures.
Number two -- you know, and John`s got to understand that because she`s close to the family like this, people look at him but that`s natural. But that being said, the one thing that just strikes me different is that he tells your reporter he left her -- or last saw her between 11:00 and 11:30, and yet he told the 911 people that he last saw her at midnight. So these kind of things that don`t -- that don`t match...
GRACE: You know, that is a very important issue in the timeline.
Back to you, John Carter. You`re the fiance. You knew her best. When did you last see her?
CARTER: I saw her between 11:00 and 11:30. I had left her house because she said she was tired. She had to go to work. And I was -- you know...
Sensitivity noted.
Note the question is when he last saw her. We flag "because, since, so, therefore, etc" as sensitive because it tells us why, not what, happened. Here we learn that he left "because" she was tired. Did she ask him to leave? He feels need to give reason about leaving, making his leaving sensitive.
GRACE: OK...
CARTER: That`s how it`s always been.
GRACE: I got it. Now, let me clear this up about the text message. You`re saying her phone was cut off at 12:45, but she sent...
CARTER: I don`t know exactly when her phone was cut off.
John Carter tells us hat her phone was "cut off" rather than shut or turned off. This suggests a more sudden or forced event. How does he know this? This is concerning.
GRACE: OK, what time did...
CARTER: The police are saying that.
GRACE: ... she send the message?
CARTER: I`m sorry. Go ahead.
Here he is "sorry" for the interruption.
GRACE: But she sent the message at 12:52?
CARTER: Yes. I mean, I got the picture message then, yes.
GRACE: Yes. OK, everybody. Take a look at this beautiful young girl. Katelyn Markham is just 22. A rising art student set to graduate and set to marry, she goes missing from her own townhome. Tonight, her fiance, who saw her last, is with us taking your calls.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
911 OPERATOR: Have you called the hospitals or jails or anything? Where was she at midnight last night when you last saw her?
CARTER: She was at her house. She was going to bed. She wasn`t going out to do anything. So she would have been in her bed. And I`ve been with her for six years. She`s not deceiving. You know, she doesn`t...
When someone tells us what someone wasn't going to do, it is important. Also, that she wasn't going out "to do anything" suggests an activity. He could have said that she wasn't going out, but he added "to do anything." Did she do something, or was she planning to do something that was sensitive to him?
GRACE: At what should have been the happiest time of her life, this young bride-to-be, just 22 years old, a rising art student, set to be married, disappears from her own condo. She`s not out walking the street, going from bar to bar, broken down on the side of the road in a car, where you would typically expect bad things to go down. No, she`s at home minding her own business. The only clue, a text message sent around midnight to her fiance. He is joining us, along with the entire panel, taking your questions live. We`re live in Fairfield.
To Monica in Ohio. Hi, Monica. What`s your question?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would just like to know why every time that he is interviewed, he talks about Katelyn in past tense. He says, I loved her, She was passionate about art. This was all said in the WLW interview that I heard on the local radio station.
Has the caller been learning Statement Analysis? Note that this question is best posed to Carter: Do you believe she is dead?
GRACE: Let`s go to Karin Johnson with WLWT. Is that true? Has he referred to her in the past tense, Karin?
JOHNSON: You know, Nancy, I have interviewed him personally. And yes, there are -- he goes back and forth. I listened to the interview I did with him several times. There have been times where he talked about her in the past tense, but there have been times he talked about her in the present tense, as well.
A single reference in past tense is a red flag that he knows or believes she is dead.
GRACE: You know, let`s go back and let him explain himself. John Carter is with us. He`s the fiance of the missing bride, Katelyn Markham. And John, as you know, police always start with the husband, the boyfriend, the fiance, the ex-boyfriend because, statistically, that`s who`s responsible when women are found dead or they go missing.
You, however, have agreed to a polygraph. You`ve come on our show and are answering questions that the public is asking you along with me. Now, John, that says a lot to me about your innocence. But it is unusual. According to reporters, you have spoken of her in the past tense.
Nancy Grace says "your innocence"
CARTER: I have spoken of her in the past tense because she is currently missing. And I only used the past tense because I don`t know what else to use. And it`s really confusing when I`m talking to so many people about it, you know, what direction I can go. And it`s insanely hard to deal with a lot of this stuff. So I deal with a lot of stress.
There is missing information here. Beginning a sentence with "And" indicates missing information. Note here how often it happens.
He could use present tense, but says he does not know what "else" to use. This is a strong indicator that he believes or knows she is dead. How does he know? Does he know because of time elapse? Have the police told him things to cause him to believe this? We don't know unless he tells us, but here, he only tells us of stress, which puts the emphasis upon him, and not upon Katelyn. Innocent loved ones of missing people hold on to hope for a long time (even non relatives) which then comes out in their speech: present tense. There is an expectation that the missing one is coming home, therefore, the present tense.
That John Carter has an explanation for using past tense language suggests that he is aware that this has been brought up as a concern. When we speak, we don't consciously decide to use past tense language for this or that reason, our words are chosen in less than a microsecond.
John Carter has indicated knowledge or belief that Katelyn is dead.
And I just want to reiterate the fact that I just really want Katelyn home. That`s all that matters to me. I don`t care if people are, you know, talking about me. Whatever. As long as we`re focused on Katelyn Markham and bringing Katelyn Markham home, that is all I want.
Note the pronoun change from "I" to "we" to "I"
Note that he tells us what he doesn't care about (in the negative) making it an important topic.
GRACE: We are live and taking your calls, and joining us to talk about the disappearance of his fiancee, a bride set to walk down the aisle, an art student set to graduate, is her fiance, John Carter.
John, tell me about the dream you were referring to.
CARTER: Her engagement ring?
GRACE: Dream. Dream.
CARTER: Oh, dream? I don`t remember too much about the dream. It was really choppy. I just remember waking up feeling like, She`s still gone and I have nothing. There`s no evidence. There`s no anything. She`s just simply gone. And I -- and it`s driving me crazy. It`s still insanely hard to wake up in the morning, knowing that I still won`t know where she is and I still won`t have her back and -- and -- I`m just hoping that...
"Oh dream?"posed as a question, is not to be deemed sensitive since it appears that he did not understand the question.
Note that one can only tell us what they do remember, not what they do not remember.
"There's no evidence" and anything reported in the negative should be considered highly important to the subject. How does he know there is "no evidence"? This should alarm police.
Note what he does know, however:
He knows that when he wakes up, he will "still won't know where she is" which indicates that he does not expect her to be come home, nor will he have her back.
GRACE: With us is fiance...
CARTER: ... I wake up and she`ll be here.
GRACE: ... John Carter.
I want to go to Alexis Weed, our producer on the story. Alexis, I want to hear about the condition of her townhome and her dog.
ALEXIS WEED, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: (INAUDIBLE) we`re hearing that the townhome was as is, that it was in its usual condition, nothing out of the ordinary. John Carter tells us, though, that when he arrived at the home, he found that her dog was locked in the bedroom, that was abnormal, and that he could tell that the dog and Katelyn -- Katelyn had been missing for a long time, hadn`t been back, because the dog had gone to the bathroom in this room and was locked inside.
GRACE: Out to Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst and author of "Dealbreakers." Weigh in, Bethany.
BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST: Well, John sounds sincerely concerned about her. He doesn`t have that exaggerated dramatic quality to his voice that perpetrators have when they call 911. He says that she is not the kind of person who would deceive. He shows empathy towards her. Perps are very deprecating towards their victims, so he doesn`t fit the psychological profile of a homicidal boyfriend.
This is a great deal of a conclusion based upon so little information, and is surprising.
Note that she says he does not have "that" exaggerated dramatic quality to his voice that perpetrators have"...has she never heard a polite or stoic perpetrator? This is why listening to the words is so much more valuable than tone.
Please note that perps are often found disparaging their victims, but often it is done in a subtle manner, not in a "very deprecating" manner as Marshal states. We often hear things like "hormones" (Zahra Baker) and other subtle ways of blaming the victim, not the open overt attacks. Note Josh Powell began slowly, mixing insult subtleties within compliments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST: Welcome back. We are live in the disappearance of Katelyn Markham. She just 22, set to graduate with an art degree in a couple weeks. This young bride to be had the whole world in front of her, when she goes missing from her own townhome, a townhome she share with her father. He was not there at the time.
And joining us, the last person to see her, her fiance John Carter.
We`re taking your calls. I want to go back quickly to Doctor Bethany Marshall, Psychoanalyst and author of deal breakers.
Bethany, a lot has been made of the fact that the fiance keeps referring to her in the past tense.
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.
The dream that she was missing and there was no evidence and then you woke up for it. That kind of a dream is what we call remnants of the day. It means that it`s just a retelling of the nightmarish reality you`re living through. It`s hard to malinger and make up a dream like that. So, that, that`s my observation about the situation.
Note the praise heaped upon him by Bethany Marshall; an expert who has discerned that Carter is telling the truth.
Very quickly, unleash the lawyers, Peter Odom and Pilar Prinz, both joining us out of Atlanta.
Pilar, a lot of people have made the fact that the fiance has referred to her in the past tense a couple of times. It was the last one to see her. These are the one that received this text messages, a picture of a picture. Many people would find all of that were together suspicious.
PILAR PRINZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY: Well Nancy, you might take that as suspicious just as if you look at it in little pieces. But here have a guy who came on your show, who passed a polygraph test, who`s voluntarily talking to police, voluntary talking to the media. Expressing from every part of him that he wants her to come home. So, we may be analyzing something, and like Doctor Bethany said, it may be that this poor fiance is recognizing the reality that this may be a very unfortunate fate for her.
The past tense reference indicates knowledge or belief that the missing person is dead. It is not an indicator of guilt by itself, and should be considered in overall analysis. Why does he believe she is dead? Have police told him so? Does he know because he caused her death?
This knowledge, or this belief, can come from many factors; everything from having caused the death, to the fact that police may have intimated that she is likely dead. It shows hopelessness. It should, however, be consistent with other statements.
Note the attorneys praising the polygraph. How often do we hear that?
GRACE: Peter, I find it very encouraging that he would even agree to take a polygraph.
PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, that`s right, Nancy. And of course, you know how I feel about polygraphs I don`t think they`re reliable at all. But people`s reactions to a polygraph can tell you a lot. You readily agree to take one person to pass it.
GRACE: That`s a good point.
ODOM: He`s acting like someone who`s just caught up in a horrible situation. My heart goes out to him, frankly.
GRACE: Back to Alexis Weed. I want to talk about a couple obvious questions these are yes no question, Alexis. Number one was her pocketbook in the townhouse?
ALEXIS WEED, PRODUCER, NANCY GRACE SHOW: It was left behind, yes.
GRACE: Yes, no.
WEED: Yes.
GRACE: Number two were her keys in the condo?
WEED: The keys were there, yes.
GRACE: Number three was there any forced entry?
WEED: Not as far as we can tell.
GRACE: That`s a yes no. OK. What do you know about the home? Was anything taken out of the home? Yes, no.
WEED: No.
GRACE: Back to John carter, fiance of Katelyn Markham. John, you said the apartment looked exactly as it did before, right?
CARTER: Yes.
GRACE: What about her car? Anything missing out of her car?
CARTER: No.
GRACE: When you got there, was the front door locked or not?
CARTER: I actually panicked as soon as I saw her car in the drive way. So, I just immediately went for the key that she gave me. I immediately went for the key and unlocked the door without thinking to check. I wanted to see her there.
The question: Was the front door locked or not. "Actually" compares two or more thoughts.
Note that he does answer the question, but with explanation. The door was locked as he unlocked it. Note that he reports his thinking at that time, which is unusual and is flagged for sensitivity. He actually reports what he was not thinking, making it sensitive.
GRACE: You don`t know. And with that key, you can`t tell if the door was locked or unlocked when you insert it?
CARTER: Yes, because I mean I insert it and I immediately unlocked the door. I didn`t even -
GRACE: What is this business I heard that she may have had a stalker?
CARTER: There`s not really any stalker.
GRACE: OK. Then what do you mean by that?
CARTER: There`s a suspicious character, but he - the police have investigated him and you know it`s not like he focused on specifically Katelyn. He just, he has a little bit of a disturbing quality to him, and the police investigated him -
GRACE: So they questioned him.
Out to the lines, Kirsten in Ohio. Hi dear, what`s your question?
KIERSTEN, CALLER, OHIO: You just asked your question that too was exactly what I about to ask because there rumors about a stalker.
GRACE: Yes, I want to get back into that a little bit, Alexis. Are we sure this guy has been questioned? And who is he?
WEED: It`s a local face book page from a local news site where people claiming to be her friends are making postings saying, yes, she had a stalker and cops are withholding information that should otherwise be out there.
GRACE: Out to Drew in Ohio. Hi Drew, what`s your question?
DREW, CALLER, OHIO: Hi. I was wondering about the documents that John burned for Katelyn supposedly?
GRACE: Yes. What about them?
DREW: What are they? Why did he -
GRACE: Well, from what he`s telling us, they are old cancelled checks and bills she had from years ago. My immediate question, have you ever heard of a shredder or just tear it up? Why the need to burn them, John?
CARTER: She actually asked me to burn them. Because she didn`t want to tear them up, she had a lot. And we don`t own a paper shredder, so she just wanted me to burn them so nobody could go through her trash and find all that stuff.
GRACE: OK. To Doctor Marty Macary, physician and professor of public health, Johns Hopkins. Doctor Marty, thank you for being with us. Police are saying no evidence of foul play in the town house. But what type of trace evidence should they look for?
DOCTOR MARTY MACARY M.D., PHYSICIAN, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH, JOHNS HOPKINS: Well, typically the forensic medical evidence the police try to recover are nail fragments, hairs. Often times can be distinguished as a hair that was pulled from the root versus a hair that fell off. Any body fluids of any kind and stains. Those are all things that can be examined in the lab.
GRACE: To John Carter, the fiance. Do you know if cops went through the townhome with luminal? And where was her father at the time she disappeared?
CARTER: I know that the cops went through her apartment. But her dad was with me right before I called the police, and he was there the whole time.
GRACE: No, I mean that night when she went missing, where was the father?
CARTER: His girlfriend`s house.
Carter reports to have taken a polygraph and have passed, which is good. Police need to continue to explore:
a. the burning of documents as unusual. They need to learn more about what the documents revealed.
b. the boss mentioned (everyone must be cleared)
c. the stalker
d. the phone texts that connect the victim to the fiance
Please note that in these transcripts, we do not find a specific reliable denial made by Carter. We do not find, however, that he is the source of most of the information, though he was the last one to see Katelyn. An interview for entertainment purposes is different from an interview that seeks information.
We do not conclude that Carter is guilty of Katelyn's disappearance, only that he did not give a reliable denial.
This means that more information is needed, and that when media interviews him, they need to let him do the talking.
No comments:
Post a Comment