Casey & Family Psychological Profile #5

[Theonly1]

Originally Posted by icherish
I have refrained from posting in this thread every time it surfaces, but I just have to ask a few questions.

First- can someone please explain to me the purpose and point of this thread? Cindy is not charged with a crime. In the eyes of the law she is one of the many victims in this case. I thought the MODS at WS at least saw her as such? If they do, why do they allow this thread? The speculative, ultimately proven-false Lee/paternity/incest thread went straight to the parking lot, as it should have. What is different about this one?

I'm simply trying to understand how whether or not Cindy has has a mental condition matters? How does dissecting, critiquing, comparing to others and arm-chair-diagnosing this grief-stricken grandmother with mental and/or personality disorders important in seeking justice for Caylee? No flames, please- I think these are legitimate questions, I ask them respectfully and I'd appreciate the same. Thanks.

I think that the purpose of this thread is that for many, (myself included) is the thought that Cindy could have prevented this tragedy. Cindy should have been the one champion that this little girl had. Instead she allowed and enabled Casey to lie again and again. The very least that she could have done was to insist upon meeting the “babysitter” way back when. Casey’s fantasy world would have collapsed and perhaps Caylee would still be alive. I wouldn’t want to be her when she wakes up in the middle of the night and is alone with her thoughts.

Wait until the penalty phase of Casey's trial when Baez & Co. bring up exactly the sort of topics discussed here (mainly Casey's upbringing, the alleged enabling, status of her mental stability, how she was raised in the A family home, her parents mental stability, etc.).

I fail to see how the Anthony family dynamic IS NOT pertinent.

Respectfully...

 

[OneLostGrl]

The only problem with this scenario is that Casey actually was NOT responsible for herself. Granted she was a twenty two year old woman when this all happened, but even then she was not responsible for ANYTHING including her own needs. Her mother took care of everything for her and Caylee and I mean everything. I doubt that Casey even had to do her own laundry much less be responsible for anything else. I know they fed her, clothed her, paid for her car, paid for her insurance and her cell phone, paid for the care of her daughter, babysat for her, handed her money on an ongoing basis, cleaned and maintained her car for her, and everything else. How can one learn to be responsible for anything when one has mommy and daddy being responsible on their behalf? They cannot.

Now, I do believe that Casey knew the difference between right and wrong just as I believe George and Cindy knew, but they did not choose the right path at every turn, and in fact, they chose the wrong path almost every time that there was a choice.

I for one admit that I am an imperfect parent. BUT I do not have much in common with George and Cindy. My children KNOW that if they steal and are caught then that is ALL on them and I will have no part in upholding it, and that includes "buying them out of it". They know if they rob a business that I am the last person that they should expect to bail them out of jail because I have taught them better than that and they KNOW better. Now, if they were out drunk and needed a ride, I would drive a hundred miles to insure that they did NOT drive, but this is because they called BEFORE they broke the law and endangered other citizens. (I use these examples in a purely hypothetical scenario:blushing And I gurantee you that if one of my kids robbed my parents or me and stole huge sums of money from one or the other of us that I would not say oh that is ok, I will pay for it and you just go on about your business. THAT would be their business and their responsibility to clear that up-especially after they were eighteen years old and legally responsible.

All of us should support and love our children.. but someone has to draw the line some place... someone has to set the standards and have morals.

 

[OneLostGrl]

:rose: For you OLG, These 2 bolded sentences are precisely how I've felt, from watching this family's dynamics, yet never could articulate, with clarity, what you have brilliantly presented. Yes, it's the excusing of all these abuses, as if they don't matter, that makes my head explode. I see this in KC, in her abnormal responses to things that would make most of us crumble.

Some may just see Cindy, as tough, thick skinned, but I see her as brick wall, impervious to meaningful advice & useful analysis that could bring a positive change, for her, as well as those around her.

Thank You, once again, for your wonderful insight, & wisdom from your personal experiences. I, for one, am so glad, & feel fortunate you are here to share!

I try not to judge, I honestly do.. I am a HUGE advocate of accepting responsibility for your own actions and placing blame where it belongs. Which, IMO, is usually within yourself and your inability to accept your own bullsh!t. We are all born with free will, it's just often easier to pretend we are someone elses victim when in fact we are often only our own. '

I don't intend to step on toes, and I certainly am no shrink.. I just offer insight from a "backwords" kind of angle. Thank you for getting my intent.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Wait until the penalty phase of Casey's trial when Baez & Co. bring up exactly the sort of topics discussed here (mainly Casey's upbringing, the alleged enabling, status of her mental stability, how she was raised in the A family home, her parents mental stability, etc.).

I fail to see how the Anthony family dynamic IS NOT pertinent.

Respectfully...

IMO it doesn't and won't matter because Casey (who is clearly not insane) made a choice. She knows right from wrong, she chose wrong.

 

[Ripley007]

Wait until the penalty phase of Casey's trial when Baez & Co. bring up exactly the sort of topics discussed here (mainly Casey's upbringing, the alleged enabling, status of her mental stability, how she was raised in the A family home, her parents mental stability, etc.).

I fail to see how the Anthony family dynamic IS NOT pertinent.

Respectfully...

Ethically, morally, spiritually, LOGICALLY, Yes, of course the A family dynamic is pertinent. Totally agree. Thing is though, that LEGALLY it makes no difference. No matter what her upbringing or life experiences, she is a "normal" human being who is sane and knows the difference between right and wrong. She chose her own fate. She had many alternative choices and options if being free of motherhood was what she desired. She chose unwisely. It's her fault and her fault alone.

 

[icherish]

I disagree. People can change. I lived a life far wilder than we know Casey's to have been. My criminal background goes back to 15 years of age.. I am a felon several times over. I won't go into everything I was but it it's sad to see people assume there is no hope. People need to know they can change.. they can improve themselves.. Even Cindy can change, DBT is an amazing thing if one is serious about changing.. My mother has come so far with her own issues that are much like what we see in Cindy. Pleawasn't pretty.. and I have changed. It is never too late.. se don't take that hope away from people.

ETA- This is an example of where I get the feeling "mental illness is a dirty word" from. Assuming people with personality disorders are doomed.. that at age 22 a persons "character" is pretty well fixed and there is no hope for them. That is just wrong.

With all due respect, I think you are the one assuming. Again, you have taken my words out of context. I gave my opinion about CASEY, I never said there was no hope for people with PD or that anyone else was "doomed." It's obvious we disagree, and that's fine with me. But please don't twist what I say and put words in my mouth to better suit your point. You could have just as easily asked for me for clarification rather than assume I meant xyz.

 

[JBean]

stop the bickering please.

 

[icherish]

Bold is mine-

Of course she didn't want to.. why would she.. it's not like she was ever held accountable or got in trouble for her actions. Why change when she could steal from mom and grandma and Lee and his friends and not even get in trouble for it? People change when their behaviors stop working... when their actions get them in trouble.. when people stop allowing the abuse, when they have no other choice. "Rock bottom"

Why would she? Maybe because it was just wrong. Why would she need to get in trouble to understand the difference between right and wrong? It's called a conscience. I don't believe she has one. moo

 

[OneLostGrl]

With all due respect, I think you are the one assuming. Again, you have taken my words out of context. I gave my opinion about CASEY, I never said there was no hope for people with PD or that anyone else was "doomed." It's obvious we disagree, and that's fine with me. But please don't twist what I say and put words in my mouth to better suit your point. You could have just as easily asked for me for clarification rather than assume I meant xyz.

These were your exact words-

"I do agree with you that they should have thrown the book at her for stealing their money and her grandparent's money. Would Casey have made a complete turnaround if they had? Not so sure. She wasn't a 16 year old "child" who's personality and character traits were still forming. At 22, I think her personality and general character (or lack of it) was pretty well fixed. Chances are she'd just learn to be craftier in her deviant ways... jmo.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...Casey was responsible for herself and she was the only one who could fix herself. She didn't want to.
Yawn....now, I'm off to work...on 3 hours sleep"

I twisted nothing about what you wrote and I certainly didn't put those words into your mouth. IMO your post speaks for itself... I twisted nothing. I think it's time we agree to disagree.. I have no desire for a T/O.

 

[OneLostGrl]

stop the bickering please.

I know, I'm sorry, really.... I'm done in this thread :blowkiss:

 

[mitzi]

I agree with you that George has some major issues.. he is what I call a man child. IMO Finding a man like him with a woman like Cindy is pretty typical (she's almost become his "mommy", no? telling him what he is allowed to say, when he is allowed to meet with LE, etc.. berates him in front of his children, he steals money from her and sneaks on the computer to look at *advertiser censored* and escort sites, gambles, or falls for scams whichever- he is the household joke).. they seek each other out, feed off one another. But she gives and gives and stays and stays- hating him all the while (how do we know this? from her mother! so this is not something I came up with or we heard from the media) Cindy wanted a divorce but wouldn't leave because that is "HER HOUSE!" ..and she aint gonna pay him no alimony!

No, IMO She is the sickest person in that home, she was willing to teach her children that is what love is, that is what family and commitment and marriage is? She was willing to be stolen from- to be used and betrayed and manipulated and made a fool of over and over and over again. And then she EXCUSES it.. all of it.. As if it doesn't matter how ANYONE treats her, as if it's OK.. like she does not even matter, her feelings her trust her emotions, her energy.. her LOVE, nothing.. none of it matters. And she taught her daughter the same thing..

I don't get how any of that can be thought of as healthy behavior..

And she is OK with that. She sees NOTHING wrong with it.. that woman is so personality disordered it is scary. And I am not putting her down when I say that! She can get help, she CAN Change.

I'd love to discuss my feelings on George and Lee too for that matter... I just don't want to be punished for discussing it.

OLG, I'd love to hear your feelings on George and Lee! I agree with you whole-heartedly regarding Cindy. I'd love to know what kind of child she was.

 

[magic-cat]

Why would she? Maybe because it was just wrong. Why would she need to get in trouble to understand the difference between right and wrong? It's called a conscience. I don't believe she has one. moo

A conscience is a thing which is developed by the constraints placed on an individuals actions. A conscience is developed by someone in a position of power, most times this would be a parent, teaching morality and ethics. One is not simply "born" with the knowledge of all that is right and all that is wrong, and in fact, there is a wide and raging debate on planet Earth amongst its human members of exactly what IS right and what IS wrong. Right and wrong are relative terms. Relative to the familial upbringing. Relative to the society. Relative to the culture. Relative to the religion. Relative. There is no black and white this is everything that is right and this is everything that is wrong. Men teach other men what they feel is right/wrong and on and on the cycle goes.

I will give you a good example of this. SWINGERS. For those who are unaware of what a "swinger" is I will give a brief and simple definition. A "swinger" is an individual or actually a group of individuals who randomly have sex with other peoples partners, wives, husbands, etc. with the complete consent of their own partner. They are not monogomous with one partner, and in fact, may have a multitude of sexual partners, but will be married or in a steady relationship with one person, with whom they share this lifestyle.

Now, I personally think this is wrong. It goes against everything that I was taught while growing up. It goes against my own personal ideology. It goes against my religious beliefs. It goes against my ethics and my own personal morals.

BUT

Those within that group and practicing said acts see nothing wrong with it at all. And it is in fact a completely legal and legitimate way of life. So I ask you-who made this wrong? Why do some of us believe a thing is wrong and some do not? It is what we have learned or simply what we choose to believe.

A conscience is within our own control. We decide what we feel is right and wrong and then our conscience dictates our own beliefs to us. Obviously in the case of the Anthony family, they have taught a "belief" that there is nothing wrong with telling lies. There is nothing wrong with stealing. There is nothing wrong with using and being used. How did they teach these things? By allowing these things to happen without consequences. Consequences are "pavlov's dogs" to the conscience: without them, no conscience is developed.

Another example of how a "consience" is developed. A baby in your home: you do not want the baby to do certain things, like make messes. So, when the baby makes a mess, you do something to discourage this-you scowl, some may smack the baby's hands, some may yell, there are a range of possible actions which would illicit the reaction from the baby that it is wrong to make a mess and I am not going to do that anymore because if I do then a.b.c. will happen. This is the beginning of what we call a "conscience". It is learned-taught. It is not an innate trait. If one is raised in an environment with a complete lack of conscience, then one is unlikely to develop one.

Think about this: is it wrong for the baby to make the mess or is it simply inconvenient for US to clean the mess repeatedly? So if it is not "wrong" we have taught the baby to have "conscience" about something that was never wrong in the first place. Flip side? We can teach a child NOT to have a conscience in exactly the same manner, by over-looking and ignoring certain behaviors.

Enter the Anthony family.

 

[snow_walker]

Respectfully, I tend to disagree somewhat with the 'consience is developed' whether from parents or other teachers. I feel it is something most of us are born with .. it can be developed to include or exclude many paths of behavior, including murder. (In some cultures in the past, it was not considered evil to kill a young child like Caylee. It was accepted as a parents responsiblity to remove unwanted children from society. Like weeding out radishes in the garden) even so, most parents did not kill their children, even if the child was not wanted.

When it was accepted that husbands could beat their wives or chilren or servants and it was quite legal to do so, yet many many people did not do any such thing. Written in their hearts and heads was a different message, one that was far older and might be summed up with 'Be Kind to Others'

The basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is still there, it forms the basis of every religious commandment in every religion. Some part of us is born knowing it is wrong to kill or cause harm, no matter what our particular culture may say on the subject. We know instinctively that it is wrong to take other people's possession. There is never a time in our lives when we don't know these things, right from birth. Our present culture enforces these rules by making them laws, and for the most part, we abide by those laws.
Occassionally though, someone is born who simply does not carry that message of right and wrong in their genes. They don't usually kill anyone, as they still live in a socity that would punish them for breaking the rules, but there isn't that inborn sense that it is wrong.
That is the difference between the KC's of the world and the rest of us.

 

[icherish]

These were your exact words-

"I do agree with you that they should have thrown the book at her for stealing their money and her grandparent's money. Would Casey have made a complete turnaround if they had? Not so sure. She wasn't a 16 year old "child" who's personality and character traits were still forming. At 22, I think her personality and general character (or lack of it) was pretty well fixed. Chances are she'd just learn to be craftier in her deviant ways... jmo.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...Casey was responsible for herself and she was the only one who could fix herself. She didn't want to.
Yawn....now, I'm off to work...on 3 hours sleep"

I twisted nothing about what you wrote and I certainly didn't put those words into your mouth. IMO your post speaks for itself... I twisted nothing. I think it's time we agree to disagree.. I have no desire for a T/O.

What I meant were the generalized statements that people are "doomed." That there is "no hope for people with pd." "Mental illness is a dirty word." I didn't say those things nor did I intend to imply them. I believe there is hope when people want to change their ways and are willing to work hard at it...because it IS very hard to change behavior patterns. My opinion, as I stated, is I wasn't so sure Casey wanted to. That's really all I can say. I am sorry you are misunderstanding my posts. I will agree to disagree with you.

 

[Theonly1]

Ethically, morally, spiritually, LOGICALLY, Yes, of course the A family dynamic is pertinent. Totally agree. Thing is though, that LEGALLY it makes no difference. No matter what her upbringing or life experiences, she is a "normal" human being who is sane and knows the difference between right and wrong. She chose her own fate. She had many alternative choices and options if being free of motherhood was what she desired. She chose unwisely. It's her fault and her fault alone.

Ahhh, that's why I wrote the PENALTY phase. This kind of information can come in at the penalty phase in Florida trials for 1st degree murder.

For these types of charges we have a GUILT phase and a PENALTY phase...This is still a capital case, right?

There are two possible penalties for the crime of 1st degree murder: Life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) or death sentence.
The first consideration to the jury is the question of GUILT. If the D is found Not Guilty the jurors' responsibility ends there. Or if the jurors find the D guilty of a lesser charge the responsibility ends there.

However, if the jury finds the D guilty there will be a second phase (known as the penalty phase). Both parties may present additional evidence as to what penalty shall be imposed.

For those of you not familiar with Florida trials of this magnitude in the words of Betty Davis, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night."

Now, if the death penalty STAYS off the table, I'm not sure if we'd go to the penalty phase. Anyone know?

 

[Theonly1]

On second thought, I think you're right (Ripley and others). With the death penalty OFF the table, then there won't be a penalty phase...[I keep forgetting that the State is now not seeking the death penalty.]

Kinda clever of the prosecution, if you think about it. Otherwise we would have a penalty phase, all this information and speculation would be fair game, and it would be a HOT MESS.

 

[magic-cat]

Respectfully, I tend to disagree somewhat with the 'consience is developed' whether from parents or other teachers. I feel it is something most of us are born with .. it can be developed to include or exclude many paths of behavior, including murder. (In some cultures in the past, it was not considered evil to kill a young child like Caylee. It was accepted as a parents responsiblity to remove unwanted children from society. Like weeding out radishes in the garden) even so, most parents did not kill their children, even if the child was not wanted.

When it was accepted that husbands could beat their wives or chilren or servants and it was quite legal to do so, yet many many people did not do any such thing. Written in their hearts and heads was a different message, one that was far older and might be summed up with 'Be Kind to Others'

The basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is still there, it forms the basis of every religious commandment in every religion. Some part of us is born knowing it is wrong to kill or cause harm, no matter what our particular culture may say on the subject. We know instinctively that it is wrong to take other people's possession. There is never a time in our lives when we don't know these things, right from birth. Our present culture enforces these rules by making them laws, and for the most part, we abide by those laws.
Occassionally though, someone is born who simply does not carry that message of right and wrong in their genes. They don't usually kill anyone, as they still live in a socity that would punish them for breaking the rules, but there isn't that inborn sense that it is wrong.
That is the difference between the KC's of the world and the rest of us.

And yet, if one kills in self-defense or in war, it is not considered a matter of "consience" that there was killing. It is relative to the situation if it is appropriate to kill. A soldier in the field, defending his country and faced down by the enemy is in a kill or be killed situation, and must kill in order to survive. So there are instances when it is NOT wrong to kill, so that must be instilled, learned from somewhere.

And here again, I would say that if a man and his family, perhaps in a war zone, are starving to death and on the verge of death, that for that man to take food, any food that he could put his hands on to insure his survival and the survival of his family, would not be wrong for him to have taken. The survival instinct trumps the "consience" every time.

At birth we have no language skills whatsoever and could not possibly conceive of any right or wrong. There is actually an "age of reason" that may range from the age of 5 to 7 or 8, and it is at this stage that it "kicks-in" what is right and what is wrong and the distinction between the two. We learn by cause and effect. The infant does not know that a certain action will illicit harm, and must learn this or be taught it. Then, the "beliefs" will be reinforced back to us through the "consience". Our consience tells us what we already believe is right and wrong. It does not tell us what may or may not actually BE wrong, until we have already decided if we believe it is wrong. Then the "consience" will cause a "guilty" feeling when we engage in what we have come to believe is wrong behavior.

I DO believe that we are born with something though, and that is a survival instinct and an empathy for our fellow man. Our survival instinct also includes the survival of our offspring, as a means to preserve our own selves. Empathy for our fellow-man, I think, also ties in on a very base level with the survival instinct, and realizes that we need one another in order TO survive. So we are born with a desire to survive. Then, we learn what is required of our particular "tribe" in order for our survival to be assured, and we follow those guidelines and live within those boundaries imposed upon us by our own society, family, and or religion. In so doing, we preserve one another. "Conscience" ties into this by consequences and obeying/disobeying the rules. I will give you a perfect example.

There is a thing called "gigging" someone, or "giving the middle finger" or "flipping someone off". This is considered a rude and crude action in which to engage and is seen as offensive by our society at large.

BUT

If a child had never learned that it was wrong to "stick up their middle finger" then there would be absolutely no "consience" associated with it in any way. It would not be a "wrong" thing that would be echoed back to you from your "conscience". It would be just another finger and mean nothing. :blushing:

 

[sharpar]

People with PD who have no conscience and no empathy - therapy has very poor results.

They can modify some behavior if they can convince the patient to stay
in therapy ( a feat in itself ) but there is no way they can implant empathy or a conscience. Dr Robert Hare has alot of good information
on psychopaths the poster children of no conscience.

Personality disorders are deeply entrenched and affect every aspect of the patients life - its not so much they have a pd its more like they are
a pd.

Family members of those with PD's will tell you after decades of medication, treatment, hospitalizations etc etc they still have the disorder and get much worse as they age.

 

[kageykaren]

The pathological passive agressiveness displayed by all members in the A Family reminds me of a contagious disease passed down in utero. The A's have taken the term 'Passive Agressive" to an all time high that seems to be still occuring to date. Looking at how the family dynamics work in crisis tells me it is going to yr's before they come out of their grief stages. Now that the A's are left with isolating lonliness, Kc only has her lonliness left to feal, where will they go psycholically.

 

[Ripley007]

On second thought, I think you're right (Ripley and others). With the death penalty OFF the table, then there won't be a penalty phase...[I keep forgetting that the State is now not seeking the death penalty.]

Kinda clever of the prosecution, if you think about it. Otherwise we would have a penalty phase, all this information and speculation would be fair game, and it would be a HOT MESS.

This is a good question. Maybe it's just cause it's late and my brains on slow-speed, but I don't know. If she's convicted but DP not an option, will personal testimony be allowed before the judge passes sentence?