Here's my quickly-typed transcript of the 05/16/19 interview between Carter and the wishtv broadcaster.
I
believe I got the gist of this interview. I typed it verbatim. Should anyone find a correction, other than spelling, please let me know. I'll repost.
I used "DC" and "Interviewer" for the two parties involved. I believe we're not allowed to post full names.
ISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation
Date of Interview: 05/16/19
Interviewer: The quiet period ends today in the Delphi murder investigation. It has been more than two years since the murders, and two weeks since the release of new clues in the case. State police said they would wait to say more until more tips came in, and give time for the families to absorb the new information.
Interviewer: Well, that time has passed now, and State Superintendent D. Car**r (DC) is here now. Good morning, Sir.
DC: Good morning, S****.
Interiewer: We've been reporting on Day Break that some 3,000 tips have come in since the release of the new information. Is any of it different? Is any of it useful?
DC: It's all useful, and it's all--the vast majority--is different. I'm thrilled with what's happened since then, and we still have a lot of work
to do, but we're not near done.
Interviewer: When we first got word--it was on Friday when we first got word that there was new information. Some of the things struck me as unusual; you invited the public to this, you weren't taking questions at that point, to wait those a little bit later. And in that briefing, it seemed like you were speaking directly to whoever did this, with the sense that this person might even be in the room. Do you think that person was in the room?
DC: I think if he wasn't in the room, he was close by, but I'm 100% convinced he was watching.
Interviewer: Why?
DC: Because of all that has happened over these last three months--the information that we had received, the information that we knew--and I hope to one day be able to tell that story.
Interviewer: You said something during the briefing that struck me--you feel like the investigators may have talked to him. You think that at some point, or since then, one of your guys has gotten in front of this person and asked him questions, and if so, how, at that point, did it not lead to an arrest, and how could it be moving forward?
DC: Well, I think it's likely. I think it's likely. There's a lot of opinions out there, there's a lot of subjective opinions, there's a lot of analysis
being done, which we're trying to encourage folks to
not do, those kinds of side-by-side analysis. I really believe, that over time, we're gonna have an idea that we were onto something early on. Now remember, this isn't a 43-minute TV show, we have to, we have to, we have to understand that's not just science, but it's also human intelligence, what people know.
DC: Somebody knows whose body that is. Somebody knows. You take the head off that person, and you'll know, you'll recognize the body, whether it be your dad, your brother, your uncle, your friend, your neighbor, your coworker. That's the piece we're waiting on. I believe that we'll get there. There is an extraordinary group of people up there that's doing this work, and I believe they're gonna come to a successful resolution.
Interviewer: You mentioned the body. In the release of video, and this is only two or three frames of video, but it shows the movement of the person. It's been asked, and I'm sure it's been asked of you as well, why not release that sooner? You knew right away you had a picture, but a picture's different than video. Why wait that long?
DC: Yeah, a picture is different than video, and a sketch is different than a photograph. So you are right, you are absolutely correct, we'll be
able one day to tell you what we know, and why we didn't release it. We don't want to show our hand. We don't want to show the complete picture of what we know, versus what we think. We have to be very, very careful there. Remember, it's easy to give an opinion if you don't understand the factual basis for what we've done and why. I don't mean that in a critical sense. But, we have to protect the integrity of what we know. And, geez, we're gonna stay at it.
Interviewer: The sketch, and to be clear, and you did clarify this after, in case folks didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both
sketches anymore. You only want them to look at the newly-release sketch, correct?
DC: That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being
something between the two (sketches), is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe.
Interviewer: And, certainly, you've shown frustration at the killer, at the fact that it takes a long time sometimes to find this(?)
The families have gotta feel frustration as well. And, one question that occurs to me, if they are fielding rumor, that you've said you
don't like, that you could head some of that off by sharing some of the grim things that the families shouldn't have to share. Why is it
that we don't know how these girls died? Why is it that we don't know if they were sex****ly assa**ted?
DC: Because only the killer knows that. And so do we. That's why. And you're right--the frustration of the families is something I
can't even begin to fathom or understand. And, we've tried very, very hard to stay connected with them, throughout this thing, this process.
But remember, a lot of people are starved for information, particularly sensationalized events like this. We can't show our hand. We
just can't.
Interviewer: Will there be a point when things change? Because it's been two years; you've changed strategies now, you have to be
looking down the horizon, if you don't get the resolution you want, you may think it may be because people want to sensationalize things.
I've heard from people close to those families who say we're tired of answering FB posts about did this happen, did that happen.
DC: I can't begin to understand their frustration. But, we can stay connected with them. And, I can't say sensationalism in a negative sense at all. Because I'm thrilled about what you've done, what you've allowed us to do today. Because this is why we'll be successful. This is why we'll be successful. But, we can't turn this into a wide-open schematic of what we know and why. We just can't. But, I believe that one day, we'll be able to.
Interviewer: You've been involved in investigations that have lead to convictions, you've been involved in some frustrating cold cases. Do you think someone will go to trial for this case someday?
DC: Yes.
(General interview wrap-up)
) -- it was something along the lines of (my paraphrase here) killers with grudges, and that Ted Bundy seemed to have a grudge against any young woman who resembled one of his former gfs (again, just a general paraphrase of what was originally posted in a previous thread).
