reversechapter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm not sure I get your reasoning here. Lots of killers take measures to conceal their victim's body, whether or not they are known to the victim or have been seen in the victim's company. Ted Bundy, for instance, disposed of his victims in wooded areas, and Gary Ridgway disposed of his in the Green River.
I'm also curious about how the "burning documents" first got brought into the investigation. If the presumption is that he was actually burning something incriminating, that would be a hell of a thing for Carter to volunteer, even with an excuse handy. And if he's supposed to have set up the excuse beforehand (sending fake messages from Katelyn's phone to establish that he needed to burn some of her papers), that shows an awful lot of forethought on his part, for something he shouldn't have been planning to tell the police in the first place.
There seems to be a heavy attitude on boards like this of... "I believe so and so is guilty. He's SO OBVIOUSLY guilty! Why don't they just prosecute him, evidence or no?" Umm... because that's not the way it works. Katelyn's body was found in an out of the way place that her fiance was familiar with, and his story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. None of that constitutes evidence beyond the anecdotal, however.
Lots of serial killers might take the time to conceal a body, but lots of killers don't (more generally). Katelyn does not appear to be the victim of a serial killer based on the comments of the police and a lot of other reasonable assumptions.
I agree with Amanda. I don't know if charges can be filed to call someone legally "guilty" of homicide. Whether John is responsible for hiding information related to Katelyn's death and whether he's legally "guilty" are two different things.
I reject the (very common) assertion made online referenced by the comment "I believe so and so is guilty. He's so OBVIOUSLY guilty." I can't find someone legally guilty on the Internet. Beliefs are still valid. I can argue they are even necessary. Some crazy outcomes happen in trials, however. I believe a lot of lesser charges can be filed, and I don't think the case should be allowed to grow cold. I accept the existence of some line in the middle. A lot is known, state lines were crossed, and many lesser charges are applicable. I know, for example, deliberate obfuscation can probably be proven. Katelyn also didn't go to Cedar Grove willingly, and placing her in trash is yet another crime. I realize I might be splitting hairs, but a lot of criminals think if something can't be proven legally, it means they aren't responsible for finding the truth even when they are inextricably tied to a victim's last night alive (for example; there are many other ties here).