Not that I can see

[Maybo]

But there's another strange thing about all this. There's no car on the property. Not that I can see anyway. Of course, in a snowstorm, the owner's car would likely be tucked away in the garage. Judy likely wouldn't park in the garage, so the fact that her car isn't visible is evidence that she hasn't arrived.

Source: Never Lie by Freida McFadden

Does “Not that I can see anyway” mean “I’m not suggesting I can see”?

 

[Tarheel]

No. It means the person can't see a car there.

 

[Maybo]

Does it mean "There is not a car that I can see"?

 

[Tarheel]

There is not a car on the property. There might be one, but the writer doesn't see any.

 

[Maybo]

This “not that” is different from the one in this thread. Isn’t it?

 

[SoothingDave]

No. In both cases you have a definite statement of fact. Then it is followed by a disclaimer.

It's just like any house. Not that I have been inside.
There is no car there. Not that I can see.

 

[Maybo]

It's just like any house. Not that I have been inside.

=I don't mean to suggest that I knew the house was like any other house

There is no car there. Not that I can see.

=I don’t mean to suggest that I can see even if there is one

Is that correct?

 

[jutfrank]

There's no car on the property.

The speaker is stating a fact.

Not that I can see, anyway.

The speaker is now saying that there is a possibility that she's wrong. Maybe there is a car that cannot be seen (there could possibly be one in the garage). This is a way to say that she is not absolutely certain that there is no car on the property because she doesn't now for sure whether the owner's car is in the garage.

Not that I can see = There's no car that is visible from where I'm standing. Maybe there is a car in the garage.

 

[SoothingDave]

=I don’t mean to suggest that I can see even if there is one

Is that correct?

I don't know what your statement means.

The person is saying two things: I can't see a car. But there might be one that is not in view.

 

[Maybo]

There's no car on the property.

The speaker is stating a fact.

Not that I can see, anyway.

The speaker is now saying that there is a possibility that she's wrong. Maybe there is a car that cannot be seen (there could possibly be one in the garage). This is a way to say that she is not absolutely certain that there is no car on the property because she doesn't now for sure whether the owner's car is in the garage.

Not that I can see = There's no car that is visible from where I'm standing. Maybe there is a car in the garage.

The usage of this “not that” is different from the one in this thread. Have I understood correctly? I keep seeing "not that" sometimes, and I don't know if I understand them correctly.

 

[Maybo]

I don't know what your statement means.

The person is saying two things: I can't see a car. But there might be one that is not in view.

"Not that" suggests possibility. Is that correct?

 

[jutfrank]

The usage of this “not that” is different from the one in this thread. Have I understood correctly?

It's simliar to some extent but I'd prefer to say it's different. If you need more help understanding the Stephen King passage, see my answer in the other thread.

"Not that" suggests possibility. Is that correct?

No, that's not correct. There is a sense of possibility in this specific context, but it's not carried by 'not that', and it isn't the case that 'not that' always creates a sense of possibility.

Does it mean "There is not a car that I can see"?

Yes, this is the right way to understand it. The tricky bit with 'not that' phrases is filling in the missing words.

There's not a car on the property that I can see, anyway.

The idea is that there's not a car that I can see but there may be a car that I can't see.