If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

[kgeaux]

Folks say this a lot, and it always brings me up short because we the public are not diagnosticians or psych professionals.

Thing is, it does not take a rocket scientists to read the criteria for sociopathy and then see the BLATANT similarities between the criteria and FCA's behavior.

Where laypeople get into "trouble" with diagnosing is that unless FCA had a pre-existing history of "conduct disorder" as a youngster, she'll never get a formal diagnosis of ASPD.

I suspect she DID have "conduct disorder" but Cindy covered for her. I'll bet my next paycheck she'd been stealing and raising hell for years. She had the fortune to have a particularly "gifted" mother, dogged as a pit bull in shielding and rescuing and kerflunkeling any attempt to hold FCA responsible.

So yes, WE CAN recognize and "assume" without being diagnosticians. We are smart enough to do that

I think it is very, very difficult for a professional to diagnose someone that they have never laid eyes on. But that is happening on the crimetainment shows almost daily. Those professionals who are appearing on shows saying such things are being paid to appear, and believe me, they know what to say to agree with the host. IMO, they deserve no respect, and I give their diagnoses no weight; they are acting in a very unprofessional manner.

I do not think laypeople can diagnose anyone. They can say they have a personal belief that Casey is a sociopath or psychopath (she's been called both) but they cannot say "She IS" a sociopath or psychopath with any degree of certainty.

:tyou:

Going through the list of 20 symptoms myself was extremely hard because I've only seen a small window into her life! No true professional in this field should (or probably would) make a decision on what she is like without having sessions with her, and that includes Dr. Drew (I'm beginning to lose respect for him, I think he's becoming another TH).

I would really like to be able to sit and talk with the psychologist who sat and talked with Casey for a period of time. I heard Casey had signed a consent to allow him to share certain findings with the public. He would be well worth listening to, IMO.

And yet there are those who go out on a limb to try to make excuses for her behavior and all of her lies by saying she was just "grieving in a different fashion" and because of unfounded, unproven with zero evidence claims of sexual abuse. That is psychoanalyzing based on nothing but a pathological liars claims and a women who spoke in generalities, never having sessions with her.
It even got her acquitted.

Did the grief expert say that Casey's behavior was consistent with what she had seen in others? Or did she say outright that Casey was grieving? Because people who study grief (and there are more than a few!) do not need to sit down with a particular person to say their grief pattern is consistent with a previously identified pattern.

It is interesting that you think this testimony is what got Casey the not guilty verdict. I didn't give her testimony that much weight.

I felt the verdict was indicative of the weakness of most of the evidence presented. IOW: the prosecution lost the case.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM - I don't quite understand this statement. I don't believe GA knew KH until after Caylee disappeared/died, so he couldn't have been borrowing money from her BEFORE any of this even ever happened.
IMO, GA was lying to CA that we know for sure of when he was involved with KH. I don't doubt he's lied to CA in the past about working when he wasn't really working (perhaps that's how he had all the time in the world to gamble online, maybe Casey knew about this?)

It couldn't have taken LE more than 12 hours to discover that the nanny Casey insisted had taken Caylee didn't exist. What were they supposed to do? Oh, this lady is lying through her teeth about where her daughter is...hey, I know, let's investigate the rest of the family instead!Just because someone is lying to you doesn't automatically mean they're criminally involved. They could've thought Casey was lying out of fear for her own safety since her daughter is "missing" at the time. They could've thought she was lying to them at the time because her daughter was being held captive and she was afraid someone would harm her daughter if she involved LE. There are many different scenarios they could've/should've investigated, but instead as soon as they found out she lied it was automatic suspicion she did something.


BBM - that means nothing as far as proving the claim. Baez was given a lot of leeway in the opening statements. That's the only place the molestation was ever addressed. You'll note it wasn't addressed in Baez's closing statements because nothing was ever brought out during trial to prove those claims. It means nothing and proves nothing to keep saying it's in the trial record.

Responses in red.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, that is how it appears.

These cunningly constructed lies, though, were fabricated in the moment, in a split second. They lack FORESIGHT beyond a certain point.

We've all read the stories of serial killers who so ingeniously hide their victim's bodies. Their effort and foresight are evident. I don't see that degree of foresight in FCA's machinations.

There are degrees of intelligence in the psychopaths we know about, and FCA does not strike me, in comparison, as all that intelligent, which is why she has been busted so early in her life, practically the moment she entered adulthood.

The fact is, she didn't hide Caylee's body worth a crap. Even worse, she didn't care if it was found NOT because she wanted it found but because she . . . doesn't give a crap. Her confidence in her ability to get the Universe to bend to her "will" was so high, and now that the jury acquitted her, she must really be feelin' that Universal approval :banghead:

I agree and think it's important to note that CFCA has not yet completely matured - I'm sure she will become even more skilled at manipulation, lying and being more cunning as she hits her mid 30's and has some practise around people who are less gullible than her mother and her young friends.

Let's face it - the way CFCA lived her life she rarely met a challenge.....

 

[beccalecca1]

Folks say this a lot, and it always brings me up short because we the public are not diagnosticians or psych professionals.

Thing is, it does not take a rocket scientists to read the criteria for sociopathy and then see the BLATANT similarities between the criteria and FCA's behavior.

Where laypeople get into "trouble" with diagnosing is that unless FCA had a pre-existing history of "conduct disorder" as a youngster, she'll never get a formal diagnosis of ASPD.

I suspect she DID have "conduct disorder" but Cindy covered for her. I'll bet my next paycheck she'd been stealing and raising hell for years. She had the fortune to have a particularly "gifted" mother, dogged as a pit bull in shielding and rescuing and kerflunkeling any attempt to hold FCA responsible.

So yes, WE CAN recognize and "assume" without being diagnosticians. We are smart enough to do that

Although you are right, it doesn't take rocket science to connect Casey and the characteristic traits (it actually takes a degree to do it professionally).... there is a certain level of critical thinking skills needed on top of loads and loads of education to be able to look at someone with objective eyes and diagnose them with a mental/personality defect.

You can't just look at someone's life in 3 years and diagnose them, unless you're dealing with a 3 year old child. There are many factors that play into diagnosing someone, their family history, their childhood history, their childhood environment, their medical health history, etc etc. Without ruling out other causes to a personality flaw, you can't just diagnose someone sociopathic/psychopathic because some of these traits could simply be related to a fluid/electrolyte imbalance, hormonal imbalance, etc; and when you fix those imbalances they may no longer exhibit those traits. When that is the case, this person is not truly psychopathic/sociopathic.

:twocents:

 

[beccalecca1]

IIRC, FCA was taken to Universal Studios for (2) reasons; first, to verify her own employment as FCA could not provide Melich with a work phone #; and second, to verify employment of the co-workers mentioned by FCA including Jeffrey Hopkins and Juliette Lewis.

I think, and I could be wrong, Casey wasn't taken there for that, but YM and J Allen had already done all of that before Casey was brought down there to get her phone. I do know it was discussed while down there, I believe at the security gate, the extension to her office (which didn't exist).

Or wait... wasn't that a phone call on speaker phone YM made to her while at the security office himself, so security could look up the information as she was telling it? Can someone help me out, am I remembering that correctly?:waitasec:

 

[beccalecca1]

FCA was taped lying over and over and over and over and over and over again. Doesn't take a psychiatrist to know that.

But that is not a clinical diagnosis, although you are right... anyone can see a lie like that.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think it is very, very difficult for a professional to diagnose someone that they have never laid eyes on. But that is happening on the crimetainment shows almost daily. Those professionals who are appearing on shows saying such things are being paid to appear, and believe me, they know what to say to agree with the host. IMO, they deserve no respect, and I give their diagnoses no weight; they are acting in a very unprofessional manner.

I do not think laypeople can diagnose anyone. They can say they have a personal belief that Casey is a sociopath or psychopath (she's been called both) but they cannot say "She IS" a sociopath or psychopath with any degree of certainty.



I would really like to be able to sit and talk with the psychologist who sat and talked with Casey for a period of time. I heard Casey had signed a consent to allow him to share certain findings with the public. He would be well worth listening to, IMO.





Did the grief expert say that Casey's behavior was consistent with what she had seen in others? Or did she say outright that Casey was grieving? Because people who study grief (and there are more than a few!) do not need to sit down with a particular person to say their grief pattern is consistent with a previously identified pattern.

It is interesting that you think this testimony is what got Casey the not guilty verdict. I didn't give her testimony that much weight.

I felt the verdict was indicative of the weakness of most of the evidence presented. IOW: the prosecution lost the case.

That grief expert said CFCA's behavior could be a symptom of grieving... that there was the possibility it was her way of grieving - which leaves the door wide open to saying it also could not be and there was no possibility it was, since she of course was unable to be definitive.

Well, let's face it - the DT had to come up with something to explain that cold face and those hateful eyes during the trial and the three years of sitting in jail instead of 'fessing up to an "accident".

Clearly this excuse seemed to work for some people, including most of the jury, while the rest of the world sees it as complete horse hockey pucks.

 

[beccalecca1]

And yet there are those who go out on a limb to try to make excuses for her behavior and all of her lies by saying she was just "grieving in a different fashion" and because of unfounded, unproven with zero evidence claims of sexual abuse. That is psychoanalyzing based on nothing but a pathological liars claims and a women who spoke in generalities, never having sessions with her.
It even got her acquitted.

The grieving in a different fashion doesn't necessarily have to result from unfounded sexual abuse. People who lacking general coping skills can grieve differently than your average person. This grief expert that people want to discredit right away actually provided a lot of information on grief in general, and it didn't have to directly relate to someone suffering from unfounded sexual abuse. Many people have abnormal grief, many.

 

[Sustained]

General question please - can someone tell me how to add text to an already quoted message with added red text such as becca's post @ 7:41 - when I quote that post, I just get the text 'Responses in red' - much appreciated !!

 

[HatesSociopaths]

I just stumbled onto this interesting video. Some of you probably already know about this. If you go to 2 minutes 30 seconds into this video, you see Casey pretending to not be able to watch the monitor of Caylee and the duct tape, yet she was fully able to before the jury walked in. (Such a manipulator!!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZk7cMOS6o&NR=1"]‪more casey anthony ,sociopathic type games for the jury !!! 2.5 min into this .‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kelian36]

But that is not a clinical diagnosis, although you are right... anyone can see a lie like that.

And I did NOT say it was a clinical diagnosis did I?

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't think Caylee drowned? Or are you saying that you don't think KC told LE someone had kidnapped her?

I don't think Caylee drowned either, but IIRC you have stated that you believe she drowned while KC was either on the phone or on the computer … ? And she did try to pass Caylee's death off as a kidnapping. And please don't ask me for the link. If we can't all agree that KC claimed Caylee had been kidnapped then this thread is just hopeless.

Oh please! CFCA's statement she wrote on the night of the 15th will clear that one up fast enough! She has never written another statement since that night. It should be really easy for the kidnapping doubters to find...

 

[kelian36]

General question please - can someone tell me how to add text to an already quoted message with added red text such as becca's post @ 7:41 - when I quote that post, I just get the text 'Responses in red' - much appreciated !!

Type your response within her post. High light what you want in red, go to the upper case A at the top of this box, click on the down arrow and click on the color text you want.
Clear as mud.:great:

 

[logicalgirl]

FCA was taped lying over and over and over and over and over and over again. Doesn't take a psychiatrist to know that.

And confirmed over and over by her Defense Team in a court of law... and in further media statements - including just yesterday....

 

[BuzzieCat]

IMO, GA was lying to CA that we know for sure of when he was involved with KH. I don't doubt he's lied to CA in the past about working when he wasn't really working (perhaps that's how he had all the time in the world to gamble online, maybe Casey knew about this?)

As far as I know, once the whole thing blew up I don't think working or not working was of much concern to GA or CA. I don't think he was thinking oh boy, I can get money from KH and hide my lack of working. Before the disappearance/death, I don't think we have any proof that GA lied about his employment status to CA, do we? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but just because FCA was doing it doesn't mean GA was also doing it.

Just because someone is lying to you doesn't automatically mean they're criminally involved. They could've thought Casey was lying out of fear for her own safety since her daughter is "missing" at the time. They could've thought she was lying to them at the time because her daughter was being held captive and she was afraid someone would harm her daughter if she involved LE. There are many different scenarios they could've/should've investigated, but instead as soon as they found out she lied it was automatic suspicion she did something.

But none of that was the case. No one was holding Caylee captive and FCA wasn't lying out of fear that Caylee would be harmed. IMO those are pretty far-fetched scenarios that don't happen that often in real life. LE was, IMO, going with what was most likely. A parent who is patently lying about the whereabouts of her 3 YO child and refuses to give any TRUE information, even going so far as to lead LE on wild goose chases, is IMO a looks-like-a-duck-quacks-like-a-duck situation. Why would that indicate to LE that they should investigate her family members?

 

[logicalgirl]

Thanks Becca for the thorough response. I will make my responses in blue.



I count 17 of 20 traits present. Taking it a step further, scoring each point on a scale of 0-2, that would give her a total score between 32 and 38. A diagnosis of psychopathy is met when the subject scores 30 points or more.

It has been my theory from the moment I heard the verdict read that the jury did not consider or did not understand that Casey Anthony was a sociopath/psychopath, so I appreciate this dialog with you to better understand how this concept of Casey has been formed by those who think the verdict was correct.

:seeya:

You forgot to count the cheque fraud with her mother, her grandmother, her grandfather, and the lie to George about depositing the $4000 cheque in the bank. This is criminal activity that we know of in three years. What else is out there?

 

[logicalgirl]

And I did NOT say it was a clinical diagnosis did I?

I would be very very interested to see what a skilled clinician would have to say about CFCA if they were able to put her through those tests that I, psychopath went through.
If I as a layperson can identfy 17 traits in far more detail than you did kelian36, then I'm pretty sure CFCA would be like a bug under a microscope to them for a long long time.
One of the things I will be watching for post verdict is someone to pop out with some verifiable information on CFCA prior to 2005 - I'll bet some of it will be a little hair raising....nobody just wakes up one day with that many sociopathic traits....

 

[kelian36]

And confirmed over and over by her Defense Team in a court of law... and in further media statements - including just yesterday....

Yes ma'm. thanks LG. :seeya:

 

[kelian36]

I would be very very interested to see what a skilled clinician would have to say about CFCA if they were able to put her through those tests that I, psychopath went through.
If I as a layperson can identfy 17 traits in far more detail than you did kelian36, then I'm pretty sure CFCA would be like a bug under a microscope to them for a long long time.
One of the things I will be watching for post verdict is someone to pop out with some verifiable information on CFCA prior to 2005 - I'll bet some of it will be a little hair raising....nobody just wakes up one day with that many sociopathic traits....

Ok LG, that made me snicker...."NOBODY wakes up with that many traits." You are so right.

 

[Sustained]

Type your response within her post. High light what you want in red, go to the upper case A at the top of this box, click on the down arrow and click on the color text you want.
Clear as mud.:great:

Thanks kelian but doesn't work for me - when I add text to a quoted post and then preview, I get a message that my post needs to be more than 5 chars. I'll send a message to the mods.