Finding Jon Again | New Episode Tomorrow
Identifying the Subject: Arrest Details and Conflicting Records
This episode follows a compact investigative fragment centered on an individual identified as John (Jon) Girton — or variations of that name — connected to an arrest on January 15, 2025. The recording documents arrest data points: birthplace recorded as Portland, the arrest location listed at 241 Avenue, a role as a DoorDash driver, and fingerprinting performed the day of arrest. Importantly, the case is not adjudicated, and the charge is listed as violating a restraining protective order.
Case Status and Legal Considerations for January 15 2025 Arrest
The hosts emphasize that the matter remains unresolved in court, meaning there is no formal judgment or sentencing at this time. That legal status affects how information should be treated publicly and underscores the presumption of innocence until adjudication. Listeners get a sense of how preliminary booking records can be incomplete or ambiguous.
Record Ambiguity: Name Spelling and Conflicting Identifiers
Throughout the segment, uncertainty appears around the subject’s exact name and spelling—airing as Girton, Gerton, and Gurtin—while the first name alternates between John and Jon. The episode highlights how minor transcription errors, variant spellings, or typos in intake forms can complicate follow-up searches and contact tracing for anyone trying to verify identity.
Communication Challenges: Emergency Contacts and Dead Ends
Attempts to reach an emergency contact, listed as Jesse Quinn, run into problems: no phone number is tied to the contact, wrong-number outcomes occur, and voicemail boxes are full. These small logistical roadblocks create practical friction for investigators, friends, or family trying to confirm welfare or case details.
Practical Next Steps and How to Trace an Unclear Record
- Cross-reference booking records with fingerprint logs and courthouse dockets to verify identity and date accuracy.
- Confirm addresses and residency before drawing conclusions; friend addresses may appear as residence in records.
- Document variant spellings and aliases to widen search parameters across databases and public records.
- Use official channels such as clerk of court or police public information officers for authoritative updates.
This episode functions as a microcase study in how arrest entries and human error intersect: a few data points—date, location, partial names, and a missing phone number—create an investigative puzzle. For listeners interested in public records, victim protection processes, or amateur case tracking, the episode shows how to proceed carefully, prioritize verified sources, and respect the presumption of innocence while gathering facts.
Key points
- Confirm identity using booking date and fingerprint records to avoid mistaken arrests and misreporting.
- Verify multiple name spellings (Girton, Gerton, Gurtin) when searching court records and databases.
- Check courthouse dockets to determine whether a restraining order violation case has been formally adjudicated.
- Cross-check listed addresses with known associates before assuming residency or contact reliability.
- Record and verify emergency contact details before attempting phone or in-person follow-ups.
- Use official law enforcement public information officers to obtain confirmed arrest locations and charge descriptions.
- Document voicemail and wrong-number outcomes when tracing a subject’s social or residential network.
FAQ
Who is the person mentioned in this episode?
The episode centers on an individual recorded as John (Jon) Girton with variant spellings of his last name and listed birthplace Portland.
When and where was the arrest recorded?
The arrest was recorded on January 15, 2025, with the location listed at 241 Avenue in Ketchikan.
What was the cited charge in the arrest record?
The arrest record lists a charge of violating a restraining protective order, and the case is not adjudicated.
Why were contact attempts unsuccessful?
Attempts failed because the listed emergency contact had no phone number, calls returned wrong numbers, and voicemail boxes were full.
