OH - Katelyn Markham, 22, Fairfield, 14 Aug 2011, found deceased in 2013 *arrest in 2023* #5

[AmandaReckonwith]

This seems a little odd...

Fairfield PD will now be in charge of testing one of the bones found in April. N
ot sure if I am reading it wrong, or if it's just leaving out info. My reaction was wtf.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/ne...lice-seek-dna-test-on-katelyn-markhams/ng7S7/

Indiana State Police Detective Vance Patton said they are “90 percent sure” the newer remains are Markham’s, but that Fairfield police were going to take over DNA testing to make confirmation.

“Fairfield is going to try to do some DNA to confirm those,” Patton said. “They (Fairfield police) have that ball in their court, and they are going to run with it over there.”

On Friday, Fairfield Officer Doug Day confirmed the department would be spearheading the latest DNA testing efforts.
“They will be sending one of the bones back to us for forensic evaluation … When we receive the bone, it will be sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab so that they can attempt to obtain a DNA sample for Katelyn Markham. The DNA sample will be kept for future comparison purposes if needed,” Day said.



AND-- since it's been a while since new things were added, here is the link to the Case Archive:
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/cr...&page=1&_suid=1408761559295014183779152984194

 

[Tssiemer]

Oh I forgot to say the flier was down when I went. I went inside and asked if she had been found but neither the employees or the customers knew. Soooo now I'm left with "am I the crazy one?" or did someone just take it down?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[concernedmother]

This seems a little odd...

Fairfield PD will now be in charge of testing one of the bones found in April. N
ot sure if I am reading it wrong, or if it's just leaving out info. My reaction was wtf.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/ne...lice-seek-dna-test-on-katelyn-markhams/ng7S7/

Indiana State Police Detective Vance Patton said they are “90 percent sure” the newer remains are Markham’s, but that Fairfield police were going to take over DNA testing to make confirmation.

“Fairfield is going to try to do some DNA to confirm those,” Patton said. “They (Fairfield police) have that ball in their court, and they are going to run with it over there.”

On Friday, Fairfield Officer Doug Day confirmed the department would be spearheading the latest DNA testing efforts.
“They will be sending one of the bones back to us for forensic evaluation … When we receive the bone, it will be sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab so that they can attempt to obtain a DNA sample for Katelyn Markham. The DNA sample will be kept for future comparison purposes if needed,” Day said.



AND-- since it's been a while since new things were added, here is the link to the Case Archive:
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/cr...&page=1&_suid=1408761559295014183779152984194

I think they are saying they found more of her remains? It sounds unclear that they made a positive ID that the first are Katelyns.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Just seems weird still.

 

[reversechapter]

Just seems weird still.

If you read into it a little, they're letting the FPD handle it (the phrase I remember from one article was "run with it," or something like that). They grabbed her bones and a few pieces of trash in one spot identified by Andy Hicks in 2013, and they knew they didn't have all of her bones (a simple count). They didn't come back a second day, from what I've been told. The area was not staked off and forensics experts did not get on their knees and dig down to ground level in an area that should have been identifiable by looking at studies (from the Body Farm at the University of Tennessee, for example) documenting how small animals scavenge a corpse. A year later, someone paying respects stumbled upon another bone, and TES found more after searching for a couple of full days.

Compare the video of Hicks' interviews with the images of TES digging in a staked-out area in April 2014. You can see they might not have taken some important trash items in 2013. Some of that trash could have been dated. A few people are now suggesting the remains might have been moved twice post-death. I personally think that feeds into needless conspiracy theories; this is a very simple, classic case in my opinion. Those trash items are gone now, reportedly cleaned up by the end of the month (April 2013) by John's mother. She might have said something about looking for the family engagement ring (which raises all sorts of questions about propriety). The area was reportedly not cleaned up with knowledge of the property owner or Katelyn's family. One of the Fairfield detectives who investigated the original missing persons case reportedly gave John's mother approval to clean up the site. In 2013, one could have argued the crime scene tape had been removed, so it was fine. Now it seems like a bad decision, considering more remains were lying a few yards away. Someone SHOULD be fired for that. What else was there and missed in 2013? After additional bones were found, the cross put up as a memorial to Katelyn was removed, and a "No Trespassing" sign was put up. I think the DNA test is bureaucratic nonsense to continue passing the perception of responsibility back and forth between the two agencies, and to make it look like SOMETHING is being done. Technically, I think Franklin County handled the processing. The ISP has probably looked at how the missing persons case was handled, and they want little to do with it. I have a lot more faith in Frank Smith, but I think the case will be difficult to take to a prosecutor now.

Katelyn was hidden in a rural area familiar to her killer 25 miles from the location where she was last seen alive and okay. Her killer was someone who knew he'd been seen with her that night. In 2011 John reportedly "blew up" the phone of Katelyn's friend, who visited her between 8:30PM and 9:00PM Saturday night, wanting to know what he'd told police. The killer dumped her body and raced to an alibi location to be seen by friends after Midnight while using Katelyn's phone (with or without help) to make it look like she was alive well after Midnight. Her phone might have pinged in Okeana at some point (directly enroute to Cedar Grove). He was probably also being pummeled by a storm that had just killed seven people at the Indiana State Fair earlier in the evening (Sugarland stage collapse-Wikipedia). That storm hit Cedar Grove the heaviest at 11:00PM. Rain started in Fairfield beginning at 11:20PM. John didn't mention the storm in any of his interviews. Everyone else in the Fairfield-Hamilton area remembered it well. How many people would typically HAVE an alibi at all after Midnight when a loved one is murdered? John's alibi is pretty elaborate: He was texting his fiancee, who had gone to sleep earlier, about the fact that he was burning HER "documents" during a driving thunderstorm in a fire pit at a friend's home (and six friends wouldn't admit seeing this document-burning) who happened to have a fire pit (even though John had a fire pit, too), after Midnight, even though he texted Katelyn that he was going to burn HIS OWN "documents" the following night when she texted that she wanted to be there to see hers burn (keep in mind, he'd just left her a short time ago, according to his own story)....and I could go on and on. Like I said: You can have whatever gut feeling you want, but you can't make a logical argument claiming John LOOKS innocent. He might BE innocent, but he LOOKS guilty.

Lesser charges like obstruction of justice or desecrating a corpse can be attempted; state lines were crossed, which could provide an opportunity to dodge double jeopardy restrictions. I can accept different views, but when you see a post by someone saying "I just don't think the fiance did it," or "I used to burn MY trash" (he didn't verifiably burn anything; he SAID he was burning HER "documents," NOT his own) or "I leave my purse upstairs," ask them to give you an overarching theory that takes everything we know into account. They won't, because they can't. Most of these people are probably not aware of all of the details, but I believe a couple of them are subtly working to rewrite history.

http://kmdce.livejournal.com/

 

[Indy Anna]

If you read into it a little, they're letting the FPD handle it (the phrase I remember from one article was "run with it," or something like that). They grabbed her bones and a few pieces of trash in one spot identified by Andy Hicks in 2013, and they knew they didn't have all of her bones (a simple count). They didn't come back a second day, from what I've been told. The area was not staked off and forensics experts did not get on their knees and dig down to ground level in an area that should have been identifiable by looking at studies (from the Body Farm at the University of Tennessee, for example) documenting how small animals scavenge a corpse. A year later, someone paying respects stumbled upon another bone, and TES found more after searching for a couple of full days.

Compare the video of Hicks' interviews with the images of TES digging in a staked-out area in April 2014. You can see they might not have taken some important trash items in 2013. Some of that trash could have been dated. A few people are now suggesting the remains might have been moved twice post-death. I personally think that feeds into needless conspiracy theories; this is a very simple, classic case in my opinion. Those trash items are gone now, reportedly cleaned up by the end of the month (April 2013) by John's mother. She might have said something about looking for the family engagement ring (which raises all sorts of questions about propriety). The area was reportedly not cleaned up with knowledge of the property owner or Katelyn's family. One of the Fairfield detectives who investigated the original missing persons case reportedly gave John's mother approval to clean up the site. In 2013, one could have argued the crime scene tape had been removed, so it was fine. Now it seems like a bad decision, considering more remains were lying a few yards away. Someone SHOULD be fired for that. What else was there and missed in 2013? After additional bones were found, the cross put up as a memorial to Katelyn was removed, and a "No Trespassing" sign was put up. I think the DNA test is bureaucratic nonsense to continue passing the perception of responsibility back and forth between the two agencies, and to make it look like SOMETHING is being done. Technically, I think Franklin County handled the processing. The ISP has probably looked at how the missing persons case was handled, and they want little to do with it. I have a lot more faith in Frank Smith, but I think the case will be difficult to take to a prosecutor now.

Katelyn was hidden in a rural area familiar to her killer 25 miles from the location where she was last seen alive and okay. Her killer was someone who knew he'd been seen with her that night. In 2011 John reportedly "blew up" the phone of Katelyn's friend, who visited her between 8:30PM and 9:00PM Saturday night, wanting to know what he'd told police. The killer dumped her body and raced to an alibi location to be seen by friends after Midnight while using Katelyn's phone (with or without help) to make it look like she was alive well after Midnight. Her phone might have pinged in Okeana at some point (directly enroute to Cedar Grove). He was probably also being pummeled by a storm that had just killed seven people at the Indiana State Fair earlier in the evening (Sugarland stage collapse-Wikipedia). That storm hit Cedar Grove the heaviest at 11:00PM. Rain started in Fairfield beginning at 11:20PM. John didn't mention the storm in any of his interviews. Everyone else in the Fairfield-Hamilton area remembered it well. How many people would typically HAVE an alibi at all after Midnight when a loved one is murdered? John's alibi is pretty elaborate: He was texting his fiancee, who had gone to sleep earlier, about the fact that he was burning HER "documents" during a driving thunderstorm in a fire pit at a friend's home (and six friends wouldn't admit seeing this document-burning) who happened to have a fire pit (even though John had a fire pit, too), after Midnight, even though he texted Katelyn that he was going to burn HIS OWN "documents" the following night when she texted that she wanted to be there to see hers burn (keep in mind, he'd just left her a short time ago, according to his own story)....and I could go on and on. Like I said: You can have whatever gut feeling you want, but you can't make a logical argument claiming John LOOKS innocent. He might BE innocent, but he LOOKS guilty.

Lesser charges like obstruction of justice or desecrating a corpse can be attempted; state lines were crossed, which could provide an opportunity to dodge double jeopardy restrictions. I can accept different views, but when you see a post by someone saying "I just don't think the fiance did it," or "I used to burn MY trash" (he didn't verifiably burn anything; he SAID he was burning HER "documents," NOT his own) or "I leave my purse upstairs," ask them to give you an overarching theory that takes everything we know into account. They won't, because they can't. Most of these people are probably not aware of all of the details, but I believe a couple of them are subtly working to rewrite history.

http://kmdce.livejournal.com/

I agree with you that everything taken into consideration makes JC look guilty. I don't know how saying "I leave my purse upstairs" conflicts with that premise. I don't believe Katelyn got out of bed to answer a knock at the door, and then was mysteriously whisked away into the night. By whom? A stranger just passing through? A friend or acquaintance who was just waiting for John to leave? Someone dragged her out of her home without a struggle and without a sound? Or, someone strangled her after getting inside and then removed her body? There would be lots of people around since she lived in a townhouse, and people stay up at varying hours of the night. Others would be awakened by any commotion in the parking lot (it would be difficult transferring a dead body from a house and loading it into a car quietly). If someone removed Katelyn from her home after killing her, they were taking a very big risk at being detected. IMO, if she had been murdered in her home, the killer would have left her there. There would be no advantage to removing a body. If there was incriminating DNA to found in Katelyn's home, it would be present whether or not the body was there.

My thinking is that Katelyn did go somewhere with JC that night and they got into an argument (probably in the car); after Katelyn was murdered and her body dumped, he returned Katelyn's purse to her home to make it appear she hadn't planned to go out and didn't go willingly. It would be much easier for Katelyn's killer to sneak into her home unnoticed to return her purse and keys, and even to retrieve something of the victim's, once Katelyn was murdered and her body disposed of, than it would be to "sneak" a dead body into a car -- in a parking lot in the center of a townhome complex -- from the building.

I don't remember it being discussed .... IIRC, didn't ISP find pieces of cloth with Katelyn's remains? I am curious as to whether the cloth (if some was found with the remains) matches the clothing Katelyn wore the last day she was seen alive.

Some careless perps do get away with murder not because they're especially bright, but because they are so close to the victim that finding their DNA in the victim's home and on the victim's person, or the victim's DNA (other than body fluids) in their car is not unusual. In this case, too much time had passed to find the perp's DNA under Kateyn's nails if she had put up a fight. If there was a violent struggle inside Katelyn's home, that would be the only reason for the killer to be concerned about his DNA on the victim's person. But, IMO it would be less risky to clean up DNA evidence (assuming the perp's DNA would naturally be found on the victim everywhere except under the nails) than it would be to remove the body from the home within the visual field of dozens of residents.

Meanwhile, JC (or anyone) can't be charged with anything until some evidence links him directly to Katelyn's death and/or the disposal of her body.

 

[reversechapter]

I agree with you that everything taken into consideration makes JC look guilty. I don't know how saying "I leave my purse upstairs" conflicts with that premise. I don't believe Katelyn got out of bed to answer a knock at the door, and then was mysteriously whisked away into the night. By whom? A stranger just passing through? A friend or acquaintance who was just waiting for John to leave? Someone dragged her out of her home without a struggle and without a sound? Or, someone strangled her after getting inside and then removed her body? There would be lots of people around since she lived in a townhouse, and people stay up at varying hours of the night. Others would be awakened by any commotion in the parking lot (it would be difficult transferring a dead body from a house and loading it into a car quietly). If someone removed Katelyn from her home after killing her, they were taking a very big risk at being detected. IMO, if she had been murdered in her home, the killer would have left her there. There would be no advantage to removing a body. If there was incriminating DNA to found in Katelyn's home, it would be present whether or not the body was there.

My thinking is that Katelyn did go somewhere with JC that night and they got into an argument (probably in the car); after Katelyn was murdered and her body dumped, he returned Katelyn's purse to her home to make it appear she hadn't planned to go out and didn't go willingly. It would be much easier for Katelyn's killer to sneak into her home unnoticed to return her purse and keys, and even to retrieve something of the victim's, once Katelyn was murdered and her body disposed of, than it would be to "sneak" a dead body into a car -- in a parking lot in the center of a townhome complex -- from the building.

I don't remember it being discussed .... IIRC, didn't ISP find pieces of cloth with Katelyn's remains? I am curious as to whether the cloth (if some was found with the remains) matches the clothing Katelyn wore the last day she was seen alive.

Some careless perps do get away with murder not because they're especially bright, but because they are so close to the victim that finding their DNA in the victim's home and on the victim's person, or the victim's DNA (other than body fluids) in their car is not unusual. In this case, too much time had passed to find the perp's DNA under Kateyn's nails if she had put up a fight. If there was a violent struggle inside Katelyn's home, that would be the only reason for the killer to be concerned about his DNA on the victim's person. But, IMO it would be less risky to clean up DNA evidence (assuming the perp's DNA would naturally be found on the victim everywhere except under the nails) than it would be to remove the body from the home within the visual field of dozens of residents.

Meanwhile, JC (or anyone) can't be charged with anything until some evidence links him directly to Katelyn's death and/or the disposal of her body.

An individual comment does not conflict; I agree. I lean toward something happening away from home, too. I agree the person who killed her was someone who was close to her and knew her. He was seen with her that night by someone else, so he had to hide her. Otherwise, she would have been found in the town home. The timeline would have been simple by obtaining the actual time of death. Her phone was taken to use to set up an alibi. Meanwhile, John's alibi was set up through the final text conversation, and Katelyn's phone was tossed. Who else would have needed to toss her phone? John has an elaborate alibi after Midnight; what are the odds? What are the odds they just happened to discuss the "burning" of Katelyn's documents, which was John's alibi? Even if detectives sleepwalked through the missing persons case, they can't be far away from being able to make a case of some kind.

Katelyn's neighbors said the walls were thin. A couple of different town home neighbors were awake after Midnight. A person who knew John and Katelyn said they heard them arguing outside from a property nearby, but the person hasn't spoken publicly. There is no confirmed time for that observation. If that happened earlier in the evening, after Katelyn's friend Brad departed (9:00PM-9:30PM), then the "tension" Brad described might have started to escalate to an argument as they headed out (right before the Mills arrived home). The Mills saw Katelyn's car. John's car was not there. They didn't think anyone was home. Either Katelyn left with John, or she was inside with the lights and TV off way before John said he left the town home. There has been some confusion about plans John and Katelyn had for Friday night versus Saturday night. We know John went to Ross, Ohio; then to Batesville, Indiana, Friday night with his father and stepmother to see a nephew graduate from seminary school (this was direct information from John's stepmother). Katelyn cancelled for the Friday trip. She also didn't want to go to the festival initially when John returned late Friday night to Fairfield, but he talked her into it. While going to Batesville, John's sister said they wanted to ask John's father to borrow a pickup truck to help them move to Colorado. Did John take care of that task Friday on his own? I believe Katelyn was eager to go to Colorado, and John did not want to go (source: John's mother said it was Katelyn's idea in a news article late in 2011). Did they meet or plan to meet John's parents in Laurel Saturday, where they owned property and the stepmother said they spent the night (they were clearing the brush from the land)? Did they return to Ross and/or Batesville? Did they take a drive and "smoke," while arguing about Colorado or their relationship? Were they moving stuff from the town home to John's place (temporary move, a couple of blocks away; they were in the process of moving)? John was not at the town home, and if Katelyn was there she was lying in the dark for some reason.

The last Facebook post we found from Katelyn (it's "unconfirmed" now, because we don't have a screen grab, but it was some innocuous and quick comment on a another person's wall, I think) was made at 9:38PM. Before that, she made a similar type of post around 9:15PM. She had texted with a relative around the same time as well about a potential job, just before 9:00PM. If she stopped commenting online, what was she doing? People watch television and check Facebook all the time. John's story has her awake and at home until after he left, and then she got back up for some reason to engage in the final text chat (which is filled with nonsense, in my opinion; I don't think it was her). Mr. Mills, Katelyn's neighbor, mentioned returning home early from the festival due to the rain (this was after he and his wife had returned between 9:30PM and 10PM; he went back out alone). John doesn't mention the extremely heavy thunderstorm that moved through the area in any of his interviews. I'm in Florida, but the storm was severe enough for every Fairfield and Hamilton person discussing the case online to remember, easily. Did John leave it out intentionally, or did he miss it somehow? Cedar Grove got hit at around 11:00PM. How did John burn a big bag of paper in a fire pit during the storm that started moving into Fairfield around 11:20PM? Actually, he didn't have time to do it if the weather was dry, if you map it out (it takes a while to burn paper documents). The "Six" witnesses at his friend's place said he was there, but they said they wouldn't "get into specifics" about the fire. I take that mean there was probably either no fire, or no burning of a large volume of paperwork during a thunderstorm. John said he burned Katelyn's paperwork at her request. They discussed the chore before he left, and then they texted about the same thing. According to John, he said she wanted to be present (suggesting it was no big deal to her, but why didn't he burn his own paperwork?). He said he had his own stuff to burn, so she could watch him burn his stuff the following night. I'm just scratching the surface, but this stuff COULD have been checked. I hope one day we'll find out what was going through the minds of the Fairfield detectives when this story was being told. I don't see how they lack evidence to apply pressure by filing lesser charges, at the very least. I think they tried to use probation violations connected to a drug charge for one of John's closest friends, and that apparently didn't work. I agree with your points about the intelligence of the perpetrator. I don't necessarily think more than one person has direct knowledge about what happened to Katelyn. I haven't heard about the clothing found, but Andy Hicks gave a lot of detail. I don't remember him mentioning clothing; maybe they asked him to keep that quiet. During the initial missing persons search, we heard about a grey shirt, but it didn't seem definitive. Hicks described a grocery bag, "like" a Kroger bag, only black, covering the skull. After processing the dump site, we know the police left a lot of trash behind, as well as some of Katelyn's bones.

I wish the police would release just ONE tidbit of information every few months along with a broad timeline to try and find witnesses in either Fairfield or Indiana. They should keep the case publicized. Indiana might be the best bet for witnesses. Was there an "Okeana" ping? Maybe someone along the route from Ross to Cedar Grove saw something. People need SOMETHING to reference time and location, even if it's a little vague; especially after three years. I understand the need to hide crime scene details, but there is quite a bit of information in this case. The case is solvable. Katelyn was not out strolling along in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night. Someone staged a phony disappearance, and the 911 call contained several red flags. I think the suspect (who isn't even being named a suspect) is being protected at the expense of the victim.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

reversechapter, I agree with you and Indy Anna. An arrest should have been made on CE alone.

Excellent journal! Thank you.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

I remember they positively identified the remains via dental records (which should have been relatively easy as Katelyn had unusual teeth) just a couple days after she was found. They didn't use DNA. It was dental records.

Why the additional bone remains from 2013 weren't tested for DNA is beyond me, though. They could have "assumed" it was also Katelyn (probably because Katelyn's remains were missing those same bones, so 2+2=4). But still... body identification is an exact science at this point. What if a different person was dumped there too? Unlikely, I know. But it just seems sloppy.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

The last Facebook post we found from Katelyn (it's "unconfirmed" now, because we don't have a screen grab, but it was some innocuous and quick comment on a another person's wall, I think) was made at 9:38PM.

There is supposedly a screen grab, but one of the people who supposedly possesses a copy would not forward it to me. So, I put it as "unconfirmed" in the KMDCE LiveJournal.

John doesn't mention the extremely heavy thunderstorm that moved through the area in any of his interviews.

I believe that when the storm hit, he was in a place that did not fit his constructed timeline, and that is why he says nothing about it. He omitted mentioning the storm -- a helpful, objective marker of that night's timeline -- even when supposedly doing everything he could to find the love of his life.

I hope one day we'll find out what was going through the minds of the Fairfield detectives when this story was being told.

Probably "This guy killed her, but we don't have enough to prove it yet" -- as in so many murder cases. I doubt they were thinking, "Golly gee whiz, we have no clue what's up here, we see no giant red flags here, no sirree!" But unless they have enough to satisfy a prosecutor, they don't have enough. Period. It's not the decision of the police whether the case goes to trial.

Andy Hicks gave a lot of detail. I don't remember him mentioning clothing; maybe they asked him to keep that quiet. During the initial missing persons search, we heard about a grey shirt, but it didn't seem definitive. Hicks described a grocery bag, "like" a Kroger bag, only black, covering the skull.

I don't recall Hicks mentioning clothing either. If anyone can find the reference, please do post it here.

I think the suspect (who isn't even being named a suspect) is being protected at the expense of the victim.

Protected why, and by whom, and under what influence? This has been said before. I'm not saying it's not true, but a statement that dramatic ought to be backed up somehow with facts, or at least reasonable speculation.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

reversechapter, I agree with you and Indy Anna. An arrest should have been made on CE alone.

I would love nothing more than to see an arrest... but if they don't have a cause of death, time of death, or place of death (they don't even know if she died in Ohio where she vanished from, or Indiana where she was found!), it would just get demolished in a trial, and the accused would walk. Forever.

 

[reversechapter]

Quote Originally Posted by reversechapter:
I think the suspect (who isn't even being named a suspect) is being protected at the expense of the victim.

Protected why, and by whom, and under what influence? This has been said before. I'm not saying it's not true, but a statement that dramatic ought to be backed up somehow with facts, or at least reasonable speculation.[/QUOTE]

I have been making the argument regularly for a couple of years, but it's complicated. Explaining it here wouldn't be any easier here than on Facebook. For one thing, I don't think the different actors have the same motivations. The FPD versus ISP, versus family members, versus people online who are members of what I call the "Facebook Police" all have different reasons for prioritizing incorrectly. In my opinion, they don't place Katelyn at the top of the priority list. Based on the jurisdictional ping-pong and news report quotes, the ISP doesn't seem happy with the way the case was handled originally (to me), but they won't come out and say it. The Facebook Police do not like someone being "tried and convicted and executed" on Facebook - which is ridiculous, since Facebook is not a trial or a gas chamber - so they make it their mission to keep the universe balanced by repeating memes like "Shut up and pray; and shut up." As one example, they might come here and say something like "Oh, that old timeline? Nobody trusts that thing!" three years later, without referencing their own version of the facts of the case. You made the Livejournal, and I still trust it.

I'm impressed with the way Chief Longo has used the control of information during the past couple of weeks while investigating the Hannah Graham case. He used social media to "out" the name of the POI before he confirmed it later. He admitted the police were wrong after "Internet detectives" discovered the POI was walking with Hannah, and it was not actually Hannah's reflection in a shop window. Longo has asked people to search their own properties (what a novel idea that isn't done half the time!), and he's been very direct in his request for witnesses. In fact, I can see a problem with being too direct, but it's better than the FPD's current work to find witnesses between Fairfield and rural Indiana. The FPD aren't publicly trying to find witnesses at all. They have never publicly tried to find witnesses by presenting a timeline or using some kind of emotional appeal. Simply compare Longo's approach with Chief Dickey's. Maybe there's a balance to be struck if you dislike Longo. After Longo's strategy, I feel like I don't need to try and explain as much, or generalize to the extent that I become misunderstood as a result of trying to explain something while I'm still learning about it. I've been thinking I might be dreaming for the last couple of weeks. I could go on and on comparing action I wanted the police to take in Katelyn's case that Longo has taken so far in Hannah's. I can't say scientifically that future outcomes will be better in one instance or the other, but I'm happy to see I'm not alone in thinking as I've been thinking. I haven't posted in the Hannah Graham thread here, but I noticed reading through that there's quite a bit of criticism of Longo, which seems strange considering this is such a groundbreaking message board related to promoting the individual freedom to speculate. I know Facebook is more of a "wild west" medium, and there is some conflict about the correct rules to observe. Maybe there's another discussion to be had about "Websleuthers vs. Facebookers," and the Facebook Police will be a part of that discussion.

One additional note about the previous comment: I agree the prosecutor needs to know what happened. They need to convince a jury what happened. They don't need every piece of the puzzle. In the Heather Elvis case they don't have a body. Do they know where Heather was killed? They have to know a lot more than we know (echoing one of the many memes of the Facebook Police), and they have to know essentially what happened. They can file lesser charges. They can publicize the case and at least define a reasonable timeline. I think in every public statement so far they have failed to name the full time interval during which Katelyn MIGHT have died. They use a text message as her "last contact." My first post on the "Help Find Hannah Graham" Facebook page was a warning against doing exactly that, because of what we've learned in Katelyn's case. State lines were crossed during the commission of Katelyn's homicide. Can anyone say whether federal involvement in the future might allow law enforcement to use the crossing of state lines to Katelyn's advantage? Both states have the death penalty, but can double jeopardy be impacted?

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

I have been making the argument regularly for a couple of years, but it's complicated. Explaining it here wouldn't be any easier here than on Facebook.

"I guess not." -Lt. Aldo Raine

Based on the jurisdictional ping-pong and news report quotes, the ISP doesn't seem happy with the way the case was handled originally (to me), but they won't come out and say it.

Jurisdictional ping-pong is not a surprise. Katelyn vanished from Ohio, with (supposedly) no trace of a struggle much less a murder. She was found 1 year and just over 8 months later, in Indiana, 25 miles away. It's unfortunate, but that is going to create "jurisdictional ping-pong." Unless they know a great deal they're not telling, they don't even know which state she was killed in.

The Facebook Police do not like someone being "tried and convicted and executed" on Facebook - which is ridiculous, since Facebook is not a trial or a gas chamber - so they make it their mission to keep the universe balanced by repeating memes like "Shut up and pray; and shut up."

No credence should be given to ignorant FB posters, imo. They also love to say things like "Innocent until proven guilty!!omg!!eleventy!!!" ...with zero understanding of the contextual meaning of that phrase. Sooo... I guess I wish them better learning someday...? Don't know what else to say.

I'm impressed with the way Chief Longo has used the control of information during the past couple of weeks while investigating the Hannah Graham case. He used social media to "out" the name of the POI before he confirmed it later.

Clearly a deliberate tactic, for which he had extremely solid reasons. Police don't do that (or not do that) just because they feel like it, or not.

Longo has asked people to search their own properties (what a novel idea that isn't done half the time!), and he's been very direct in his request for witnesses.

I recall this happening in the early days of Katelyn being missing too. I remember locals being asked to search their properties. Did I dream it...?

it's better than the FPD's current work to find witnesses between Fairfield and rural Indiana. The FPD aren't publicly trying to find witnesses at all.

"Publicly"

They have never publicly tried to find witnesses by presenting a timeline

At least one media outlet did use a timeline, as I recall. I'm somewhat aware of timelines. Do you think the police don't have a timeline? I think the police have a timeline. If I can create a timeline, I'm guessing they could too. With far more info than I have, certainly.

... or using some kind of emotional appeal.

Dave Markham, Katelyn's father, used emotional appeal in mass media. Why should the police? They didn't know her. Her poor father did. A family member is usually the one who pleads for mercy, knowledge, understanding, etc. in missing persons cases. This has been the case for decades.

I know you love to compare other missing/homicide cases to Katelyn's -- the ones where LE know what they're doing, by God! -- but you cannot seem to understand that every case is different. Hugely different. The circumstances are different, the victim, the perp, the methods, the evidence.

You have ridiculed my studying and explicating of my findings of other cases in other forums, the last time claiming the case I cited was "too old" (10 whole years), though I was specifically mentioning a case that had been studied from start to finish -- "finish" meaning successful prosecution.

One additional note about the previous comment: I agree the prosecutor needs to know what happened. They need to convince a jury what happened. They don't need every piece of the puzzle.

Definitely not. Evelyn Scott from the 1950s was a successful murder prosecution without a body. But the prosecutor needs enough. And without enough, even if it goes to trial, a trial that results in an acquittal potentially lets a murderer walk free.

State lines were crossed during the commission of Katelyn's homicide. Can anyone say whether federal involvement in the future might allow law enforcement to use the crossing of state lines to Katelyn's advantage? Both states have the death penalty, but can double jeopardy be impacted?

Huh?

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Case Archive:

http://s296.photobucket.com/user/crankycrankerson/library/Katelyn Markham -OH-?sort=6&page=1

 

[reversechapter]

I'll look through the archive and the timeline again. I don't recall them asking people to search their own property, unless they did it once and stopped. I invite anyone to read your transcript of Chief Dickey's interview by Bill Cunningham. Compare that to the interview with the ex-Cincinnati chief on the same page (I know there's a difference between a person working an actual case and someone who's retired, but geez). The police providing a timeline and direction is vital. Two weeks doesn't cut it, and I don't think they did a good job the first two weeks. I think a lot of the people look for direction from the police. If they don't get it, they might not come forward at all. The FPD gave them an excuse not to come forward. I agree there's a balance to be struck, but the FPD provided no direction in my opinion. They could have at least held a press conference once every few months to update people, even if they didn't provide new information. People in rural Indiana have no way of knowing about the case from official (law enforcement) sources, and I'm not sure how much the media overlaps. However, the police must use the media to achieve some goals. They can't go door to door and talk to every person from Fairfield to Cedar Grove. [I shouldn't have ridiculed your case.]

Oh, the last part: I was wondering if double jeopardy might not apply if a federal case is ever attempted:

Wikipedia: "The 'dual sovereignty' doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offense to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offense and vice versa because 'an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.' The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the law, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the power it grants."

 

[reversechapter]

I'll try to explain again why I think it's bad for a police department to say there's "nothing," and to fail to regularly publicize an unsolved homicide over the long term, when they also say they need new leads. I probably haven't done a good job. Theoretically, let's say someone is close to a person who is clearly a suspect in a homicide based on every logical measure available. Forget the details for a moment. If the police take the official public stance "We have 'nothing,' " they might be employing an intelligent strategy as long as the suspect is talking. I get that. When the suspect stops talking and moves forward, though, I see a big problem with that approach. If a friend who can't believe the suspect is responsible takes the public comments of police leaders seriously, why would he come forward with a piece of indirect information that might make his friend look unfavorable? He has every reason to avoid coming forward. He wouldn't want to be the person who brings down his friend unjustly, since the police have "nothing." In fact, what he will envision happening should he go to the police with his information, is that his friend will still not be considered a suspect. However, his friend (the obvious suspect on paper who hasn't been named a suspect by the experts) will probably find out he went to the police with this unfavorable information. Friends like this one and the people who I call the Facebook Police will understandably rally against any progress attempted using public resources. Their priority will be defending the suspect from being treated unfairly, and backing up the police strategy to continue doing nothing. I think people look to police leaders for direction, and law enforcement is supposed to speak on behalf of the victim. When they say there's nothing - especially when it's not true - they create an environment where nothing is acceptable. They create a cold case from the start, no matter how often they call it "open and active and pending" and express how hard they're working.

 

[reversechapter]

I've gone over a few early news pieces, and the impression I got from the FPD is what I remember: They might have been employing a strategy, but they said "I know nothing" very clearly. I created a meme using Sgt. Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes" once. If someone finds out otherwise, please post it (also, was the media source accessible to people in Indiana? If not, it was useless). They FPD not declare Katelyn "missing-endangered," and they should have based on the 911 call alone, whether you consider that a criticism or a constructive comment to improve future investigations. Hell, it would be a constructive comment RIGHT NOW to improve the progress related to Katelyn's investigation, which is why I sound like a broken record. It's not too late to try and find witnesses. It is becoming late, in my opinion, considering they aren't making a public effort. I know everyone agrees with most of what I'm saying, generally speaking, but without debating the detail there's no real action toward progress. If the argument is I'm being too hard on the FPD, I don't agree. I'll keep going through Cranky's stuff (for the hundredth time, lol). That's a great information resource as well as LiveJournal (thanks). I am finding some other things. I found the article mentioning that Murphy was "locked" in the bedroom, which we discussed on Facebook recently.

Maybe the TES said something about homeowners searching their own property? That doesn't jive with what we've discussed again and again, though, since we also had the ping weirdness. The FPD was not clear about the final ping information, the chief made a statement indicating he was actually confused about whether they had given out the final ping info, and we have heard rumors about an Okeana ping. We've had people post who say they were a part of the small team driven out there. Okeana is about halfway between Ross and Cedar Grove. If they didn't ask people in rural Indiana to search their own property - considering they should have known John traveled there, his parents had property there (live there now), and he named himself as a logical suspect - they made an error. My view, based on what I've listed in this paragraph, is that the FPD did not encourage people in the most logical search direction to search their properties, and I can even argue they took action to prevent the public from understanding the importance of searching in the most logical area; which is where Katelyn was lying for 20 months.

If they or the TES mentioned it once, it wasn't enough. Most searches for a missing person involve releasing general ping data, if it's available and court orders aren't required. The ping data, asking to search private property, isolating trash at landfills, and other basic rules, are not written officially in most jurisdictions. Hidden data about the investigation, like the items I listed explaining why the FPD should have considered John a suspect, does not have to be revealed for the police to provide some geographical and rule-of-thumb direction to the public for general search purposes. Law enforcement can present themselves professionally and have the appearance of being in control of the flow of information even if they don't release a lot of detail. Longo has mentioned searching private property about five times so far in a couple of weeks. The FPD should have mentioned it regularly, but then they didn't mention the case at all regularly. I understand the mayor (messaging the new mayor turned out to be a waste of time) and government are concerned with the perception of citizens toward crime, but what's wrong with the police department reviewing the handful of unsolved murders they have in Fairfield once every few months? Once a quarter, as part of a regular series with the media? How about starting a Facebook page to accomplish some kind of positive information sharing, like every other police agency in the civilized world seems to have today?

 

[reversechapter]

I'm still sifting through the media for Katelyn. I shouldn't praise raw emotion alone as something important. I think I see a link that might help me understand my position a little better. All of us occasionally use the memes I have been associating derogatorily with the "Facebook Police." The difference is the reason the language is being used, and whether a real information exchange takes place. Without perseverance and basic information sharing, emotion alone can ring hollow. Chief Longo wasn't just emotional. He used emotion to help get specific pieces of information out to people, and to get the "Internet detectives" to provide a specific piece of information: The name of the person of interest. I believe the FPD created a public information position after Katelyn went missing. I also think at the time we were discussing that very subject (the control of information by police in that situation) on social media. I remember praising them for creating the position. In November of 2011, Chief Dickey echoed the idea that the police should speak for the victim (see Cranky's link below). I was saying that, and I've probably driven a few people nuts repeating it for three years. But saying it and doing it are different things. Empty language has to be distinguished from a real exchange of information (in the sense of information theory). Chief Dickey also said something about working for "90 days or 90 years" to solve the case in another article. I see that as language being used for the wrong purpose. Once Katelyn was discovered, I figured the words would finally be backed up with a complete review of the case and a public plea for witnesses. It wasn’t. Did the FPD perhaps try to respond to early public criticism, and did they finally give up and start concealing their internal methodology as much as possible? They might figure they can't win the public image battle.

The response I see the most often to my criticism (not here) is the insistence that Katelyn's case is not cold. A few days ago someone remarked on Facebook: "All I can say is that this is still very much an open, active, ongoing investigation." The police spokesmen aren't saying that with the same fervor, but as long as they say the case is active, it's an arguable position. Keeping in mind that I realize a case might take a long time to organize - which is a different argument, and one with which I agree - arguing that Katelyn's case is not cold is simply wrong. The public comments provided by the ISP and FPD both refute it. The private investigator and ex-Butler detective hired by Katelyn's family said he uses three years as his personal measure for when a case goes cold, which sounds reasonable. Statistically, the chances for the case to be solved decreases with time. I believe the reason I've invented the term "Facebook Police," out of frustration, has been to call out what I perceive as empty language. If police leaders fail to hold regular press conferences to try and find witnesses and define the entire range of possibilities for the time of Katelyn's death, while saying something like "Katelyn's file is going to stay right here on my desk, active and pending and ongoing, even it's there for ten years" their words ring hollow to me. That’s actually putting it mildly. The reason the file is "active" and sitting on a desk has changed from trying to obtain justice to something else.


http://s296.photobucket.com/user/cr...am -OH-/3months-Katelyn.jpg.html?sort=6&o=261

 

[TB Rhine]

He was seen with her that night by someone else, so he had to hide her.

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.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

And that is why there is no arrest. Katelyn was not found soon enough.

There may never be justice on this earth.


Case Archive for Katelyn Markham:
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/crankycrankerson/library/Katelyn Markham -OH-?sort=6&page=1