Casey & Family Psychological Profile #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #381
I was reading an article earlier about "psychopath's" and their language, the words they use sometimes being different due to their lack of normal emotions. I was going over this statement below, made by Casey, and was wondering if this might be an example of that. IMO, the statement just doesn't make much sense...

"I try to keep an open mind when it comes to things, but if I'm innocent, that's, that's as far as it goes," Anthony says. "I'll take this as far as I need to prove my innocence, which I guess is my point in all this."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506774,00.html

It is just a guess. She is also saying My hands are tied because you are all trying to triick me into a confession: Now how would a 22 year old think like that? DOES ANYBODY HEAR GAs VOICE.I do!!! Loud and Clear....
It probably went like this: "Be very carful, VERY, do not let anyone trick a confession out of you because then you are tost!"
Cindi asked her on thier first vist "you did not tell them" hmmmmm.
Sure Cindy..she did not have to...
so Casey's keeping an open mind means I will try to give you as many yes, no answers as I can.....

Back to your question about Casey speaks differently,
IMO they do not speak a proper englis , and omit many words - Is she saying? after you all find out that I did not kill Caylee, I am not interested in any other questioning about anyone I know, or met along my path and what had happened. Don't come asking me what I mean went when I told Amy she can move in; Just lets go and get ME proven Innocent and out of here.



So Searchfortruth are you saying KC's speaking in circles is b/c she is a sociopath or psychopath and b/c of that she doesn't know what an innocent person would say or the way they would behave, so she is winging it here, saying what she THINKS an innocent person would say? And just getting it wrong from top to bottom? IMO in that jumbled mess she is telling (who?) YM? that she is going to play her hand all the way through no matter where that takes her. She is rolling the dice. JMO
 
  • #382
It is just a guess. She is also saying My hands are tied because you are all trying to triick me into a confession: Now how would a 22 year old think like that? DOES ANYBODY HEAR GAs VOICE.I do!!! Loud and Clear....
It probably went like this: "Be very carful, VERY, do not let anyone trick a confession out of you because then you are tost!"
Cindi asked her on thier first vist "you did not tell them" hmmmmm.
Sure Cindy..she did not have to...
so Casey's keeping an open mind means I will try to give you as many yes, no answers as I can.....

Back to your question about Casey speaks differently,
IMO they do not speak a proper englis , and omit many words - Is she saying? after you all find out that I did not kill Caylee, I am not interested in any other questioning about anyone I know, or met along my path and what had happened. Don't come asking me what I mean went when I told Amy she can move in; Just lets go and get ME proven Innocent and out of here.

Now that is down right plain scary. You have it down pat ..........
 
  • #383
We are all part of every conversation no conversation is privet unless it is on a PM. :blowkiss: Welcome!

This case has many transparent pieces; and we have many feelings, judgments, questions, ideas: that is why we come here....
Some of the people here are really genuine, intelligent, some professional in Fields that are helpful and some are just loving people who really care about this case namely CAYLEE.

As far as Casey goes it is apparent that she is guilty...You do not have to be a forensic specialist to see that.
But I am not sure to what degree she is guilty.. That is important.
I am sure that there are many things with this situation that are intended to create confusion.
Many hidden pieces, many lies...in short the case is not over.
As for talking about "Open Mindedness" being a personal issue - that made my eyebrows go right up.
I have talked about development and the mind since 1980, have done in in many states, several countries , all over the place and I have never herd that one. "An open mind is a many splendid thing" :)
I agree an open mind is a positive thing. I was responding yesterday to some posts that I had read. I really don't want to be the one responsible for bringing up the topic again, so I will just leave it as is...an open mind is great, as is the ability to form thought's, make conclusions from those thoughts...
 
  • #384
So Searchfortruth are you saying KC's speaking in circles is b/c she is a sociopath or psychopath and b/c of that she doesn't know what an innocent person would say or the way they would behave, so she is winging it here, saying what she THINKS an innocent person would say? And just getting it wrong from top to bottom? IMO in that jumbled mess she is telling (who?) YM? that she is going to play her hand all the way through no matter where that takes her. She is rolling the dice. JMO
I have no idea what Casey speak means. I was reading an article last night on the speech patterns of psychopath's and came across her statement there, that didn't seem to make sense to me. I was actually asking for some, any answers as to the language being different, if it is, in these people. Even when she's just talking, as in the statement I copied, it sounds...off somehow.
 
  • #385
I have no idea what Casey speak means. I was reading an article last night on the speech patterns of psychopath's and came across her statement there, that didn't seem to make sense to me. I was actually asking for some, any answers as to the language being different, if it is, in these people. Even when she's just talking, as in the statement I copied, it sounds...off somehow.

I was thinking she speaks in circles when she is dissembling. The whole family does it, as do a lot of people, when they dissemble.
 
  • #386
Many moons ago i posted the subject of ForensicPsycholinguistics employed by the FBI forensic behavioral science unit. One of our posters and I have been discussing this subject again over the last two days. There is more info you can locate on this subject of word placement and the sociopath in our search area here at W/S by just typing in that title. I think people may be more open to this subject now that the case has more details. This particular sentence to me and this is not a professional account. This sentence says a few things to me. First word that hit me was the word, 'but" between the two sentences showing a change in thought. First sentence is actually saying' "Keep mind alert" (keep open mind) about "Questions" (things) that may be asked" the word "but" showing guilt before she uses the word innocense. "thats, thats, as far as it goes" meaning, " thats when I quit cooperating with you!" "I'll take this as far as I need to" meaning: "I'm gonna make you work really difficult for you to prove anything" "Which I guess is my point in all this" translates to, "Saving my 🤬🤬🤬 is the most important point of all." Hope this was easy to understand.
 
  • #387
I can't either. But, JB may be media-intoxicated, or KC might be playing him like a Stradivarius.
Ouch! KC in the same sentence with the word, "Stradivarioue" wouldn't jive so well with the musicians on W/S. KC worth these days is 0! A stradivarius is priceless. Maybe a fiddle would best describe how she plays JB She's probably trying to find a "Hoot-nanny" to join! LOL! It's been a lack luster day here. :)
 
  • #388
So Searchfortruth are you saying KC's speaking in circles is b/c she is a sociopath or psychopath and b/c of that she doesn't know what an innocent person would say or the way they would behave, so she is winging it here, saying what she THINKS an innocent person would say? And just getting it wrong from top to bottom? IMO in that jumbled mess she is telling (who?) YM? that she is going to play her hand all the way through no matter where that takes her. She is rolling the dice. JMO

One of KC's worst problems is that she doesn't KNOW what an innocent person would say. She's not bright enough, and too narcissistic, to observe and immitate.

Think, Bundy. He was a more extreme sociopath. But, very bright, and very good at appearing to be a genuine person.

And she has no functional role models for immitation, at home. Like a lot of "closed system" families (like mine was, for instance), the As don't seems to have a lot of friends. The more functional relatives were alienated, at Rick's wedding.

What's a dumb sociopath to do? ;-)
 
  • #389
Ouch! KC in the same sentence with the word, "Stradivarioue" wouldn't jive so well with the musicians on W/S. KC worth these days is 0! A stradivarius is priceless. Maybe a fiddle would best describe how she plays JB She's probably trying to find a "Hoot-nanny" to join! LOL! It's been a lack luster day here. :)

Yes! Even as I write, the local musicians' union is outside, screaming for my blood! Waving trombones and cello bows! :)
 
  • #390
I was not so much comparing Susan Smith to Casey, but rather what jurors might take into consideration when deciding for or against the death penalty.

Oops, I didn't mean to say I thought you personally were comparing the women. I should have worded it better, I'm sorry! :blowkiss: I was just saying that the jury is only allowed to consider certain things and unless there is a history of or a current dx of mental illness or a known history of family problems the jury couldn't consider those things. There has to be proof that it applies to them before a judge would let a jury consider it.

Again, I'm sorry for the way it came out in my last post, I honestly didn't mean it like that! :blowkiss:
 
  • #391
I enjoyed reading through all the very different, yet strongly held, views here when trying to catch up with this thread. I've already said that a NGRI is really not going to fly, because defendants have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are insane. Regardless of your views on sane/insane, there needs to be strong evidence of insanity to carry that burden (which we just don't have here).

But its important to keep in mind when looking at the evidence is that we're basing our judgments on ALL of the possible evidence released thus far - not the evidence judged relevant and admissible at trial. Evidence law leans towards exclusion with evidence that is inculpatory towards criminal defendants. Scientific evidence also has to be shown not just to be reliable, but reliable in regards to the particular facts of the case.

For example - a very disturbing example - paternity tests aren't admissible in sexual assault cases unless the defendant has admitted to having sex with the victim. The victim accuses the defendant of raping her, and she is pregnant with his child. You'd think that is admissible as CLEAR evidence of at least sexual intercourse (an element of the crime of rape). But Bayes Theorm that's used to determine paternity is based on the assumption that the defendant and another man both had sex with the victim - and each would be equally as likely to have impregnated her. And then it shows that based on DNA, the defendant is 99% likely to be the father. Since criminal defendants have a presumption of innocence, the Court won't allow in evidence that is based on a 50% probability of him having committed an element of the offence - sex with the victim.

Of course that's not in issue here, but I am a little concerned about the admissibility of the body farm evidence under Daubert, and some of the FBI evidence that was not "statistically significant." I'd have to refresh my memory with the actual numbers and see Florida's exact scientific evidence requirements, but its just a thought.

So, the point of this post (it has one) was just to say that I think keeping a more open mind than we think is needed/justified is important - at least if we are discussing what will actually happen at trial. I can look at the evidence now and have very strong theories, but are my theories as strong if half of my evidence is declared irrelevant or prejudicial by an overly-cautious judge? Then I, as a prosecutor, would have to look at what is left - see what wild theories the defense is going to try to introduce - and make sure I have a clear and coherent explanation for every single one. You don't want to give the defense an opening for reasonable doubt by being so focused on your 100% "correct" theory that you mis-judge a convincing defense witness. Judge and jury are only human.
 
  • #392
One of KC's worst problems is that she doesn't KNOW what an innocent person would say. She's not bright enough, and too narcissistic, to observe and immitate.

Think, Bundy. He was a more extreme sociopath. But, very bright, and very good at appearing to be a genuine person.

And she has no functional role models for immitation, at home. Like a lot of "closed system" families (like mine was, for instance), the As don't seems to have a lot of friends. The more functional relatives were alienated, at Rick's wedding.

What's a dumb sociopath to do? ;-)

:HBwhiteflag: Brini, this is not to spar but to hopefully broaden the scope.
Intelligence is a multifaceted function where the IQ score measures only the composite or average of combined functions,
while separate functions may be high or average in one area while low in another (or others).

With respect to KC's intelligence, we've all heard examples of her poor common sense judgment suggesting a lowered functioning in that area
both Non-verbally (carrying a body around in a car, though Ted Bundy did that, too, and even had the seat of his VWs removed for that purpose),
as well as Verbally, trying to portray "innocence" in a written verbal statement by giving a 4-hr. time span when she allegedly dropped off a young child.

By contrast, I was struck by how precisely, almost-perfectly she had punctuated that statement, indicating good ability to retain learning
from certain educational achievement, as well as some compulsivity, which can be used to assist intellectual functioning (dotting all i-s, crossing all t-s),
providing everything else is working in tandem. So, I'd suggest that her overall Verbal abilities are average (though she's low in common sense
there, too, as well as low in Non-verbal common sense reasoning). Certain Non-verbal abilities just can't be estimated from a distance for the overall
"smart" or "dumb" score. (My guess is she's reasonably high in Non-verbal abilities that have to do with visual acuity and analytic ability, i.e, as
suggested by her vast photographic repertoire).

I agree she's no Ted Bundy intellectually, but she is reported to be reading the Law in jail, so she may very well recognize the full implications of a
NGBRoI defense and be the one who cancelled that plan, as OLG has suggested. Since verbal abilities can increase into adulthood, maybe she'll
eventually enter the legal profession--if she's acquitted. Smart thinking, KC!

I agree with your "closed system," and having to guess at what's "normal" or" innocent," though with correct models, she's a good mimic.

Disclaimer
The above is based on a review of information available to all lay persons
and is not intended as any type of professional psychological assessment of any person anywhere for any reason.
 
  • #393
We are all part of every conversation no conversation is privet unless it is on a PM. :blowkiss: Welcome!

This case has many transparent pieces; and we have many feelings, judgments, questions, ideas: that is why we come here....
Some of the people here are really genuine, intelligent, some professional in Fields that are helpful and some are just loving people who really care about this case namely CAYLEE.

As far as Casey goes it is apparent that she is guilty...You do not have to be a forensic specialist to see that.
But I am not sure to what degree she is guilty.. That is important.
I am sure that there are many things with this situation that are intended to create confusion.
Many hidden pieces, many lies...in short the case is not over.
As for talking about "Open Mindedness" being a personal issue - that made my eyebrows go right up.
I have talked about development and the mind since 1980, have done in in many states, several countries , all over the place and I have never herd that one. "An open mind is a many splendid thing" :)

It's funny, ya know, the things that are apparent to some and not to others. and vice versa. Now don't go getting your feathers all in a bunch, it's just conversation, my brains not leaking from all it's closed mindedness... yet :blowkiss:

To me, it isn't so apparent that Casey is guilty. I also don't see Casey as the "Sociopath/Psychopath" that others see her as (Yeah, I know, I know Brini, but we can still heart eachother LOL). I don't think she mimic's human behavior so much as chokes down her human emotions... "checks out" so she doesn't have to feel. Don't get me wrong, I think she has some pretty big issues, and needs major help even if if turns out she didn't do this..

But anyway, it's funny how people see things so differently. and that's OK. It doesn't mean you are closed minded because you think she did this and I'm not so sure we just see things differently, ya know?
 
  • #394
I was not so much comparing Susan Smith to Casey, but rather what jurors might take into consideration when deciding for or against the death penalty.

Well, the family is certainly dysfunctional. But, there is no evidence of overt abuse of KC.

Plus, so many people who are from abusive or crazy homes turn out quite well, anyway.

And.. one still has to prove that she didn't know what she was doing.
 
  • #395
I enjoyed reading through all the very different, yet strongly held, views here when trying to catch up with this thread. I've already said that a NGRI is really not going to fly, because defendants have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are insane. Regardless of your views on sane/insane, there needs to be strong evidence of insanity to carry that burden (which we just don't have here).

But its important to keep in mind when looking at the evidence is that we're basing our judgments on ALL of the possible evidence released thus far - not the evidence judged relevant and admissible at trial. Evidence law leans towards exclusion with evidence that is inculpatory towards criminal defendants. Scientific evidence also has to be shown not just to be reliable, but reliable in regards to the particular facts of the case.

For example - a very disturbing example - paternity tests aren't admissible in sexual assault cases unless the defendant has admitted to having sex with the victim. The victim accuses the defendant of raping her, and she is pregnant with his child. You'd think that is admissible as CLEAR evidence of at least sexual intercourse (an element of the crime of rape). But Bayes Theorm that's used to determine paternity is based on the assumption that the defendant and another man both had sex with the victim - and each would be equally as likely to have impregnated her. And then it shows that based on DNA, the defendant is 99% likely to be the father. Since criminal defendants have a presumption of innocence, the Court won't allow in evidence that is based on a 50% probability of him having committed an element of the offence - sex with the victim.

Of course that's not in issue here, but I am a little concerned about the admissibility of the body farm evidence under Daubert, and some of the FBI evidence that was not "statistically significant." I'd have to refresh my memory with the actual numbers and see Florida's exact scientific evidence requirements, but its just a thought.

So, the point of this post (it has one) was just to say that I think keeping a more open mind than we think is needed/justified is important - at least if we are discussing what will actually happen at trial. I can look at the evidence now and have very strong theories, but are my theories as strong if half of my evidence is declared irrelevant or prejudicial by an overly-cautious judge? Then I, as a prosecutor, would have to look at what is left - see what wild theories the defense is going to try to introduce - and make sure I have a clear and coherent explanation for every single one. You don't want to give the defense an opening for reasonable doubt by being so focused on your 100% "correct" theory that you mis-judge a convincing defense witness. Judge and jury are only human.

Thanks for the outstanding post, Lawlady (you live up to your name)! This helps me understand a lot about what I've been trying to say but lacked the necessary
verbal repertoire to do so.
 
  • #396
Verité;3774161 said:
:HBwhiteflag: Brini, this is not to spar but to hopefully broaden the scope.
Intelligence is a multifaceted function where the IQ score measures only the composite or average of combined functions,
while separate functions may be high or average in one area while low in another (or others).

With respect to KC's intelligence, we've all heard examples of her poor common sense judgment suggesting a lowered functioning in that area
both Non-verbally (carrying a body around in a car, though Ted Bundy did that, too, and even had the seat of his VWs removed for that purpose),
as well as Verbally, trying to portray "innocence" in a written verbal statement by giving a 4-hr. time span when she allegedly dropped off a young child.

By contrast, I was struck by how precisely, almost-perfectly she had punctuated that statement, indicating good ability to retain learning
from certain educational achievement, as well as some compulsivity, which can be used to assist intellectual functioning (dotting all i-s, crossing all t-s),
providing everything else is working in tandem. So, I'd suggest that her overall Verbal abilities are average (though she's low in common sense
there, too, as well as low in Non-verbal common sense reasoning). Certain Non-verbal abilities just can't be estimated from a distance for the overall
"smart" or "dumb" score. (My guess is she's reasonably high in Non-verbal abilities that have to do with visual acuity and analytic ability, i.e, as
suggested by her vast photographic repertoire).

I agree she's no Ted Bundy intellectually, but she is reported to be reading the Law in jail, so she may very well recognize the full implications of a
NGBRoI defense and be the one who cancelled that plan, as OLG has suggested. Since verbal abilities can increase into adulthood, maybe she'll
eventually enter the legal profession--if she's acquitted. Smart thinking, KC!

I agree with your "closed system," and having to guess at what's "normal" or" innocent," though with correct models, she's a good mimic.

Disclaimer
The above is based on a review of information available to all lay persons
and is not intended as any type of professional psychological assessment of any person anywhere for any reason.

I see what you are saying. You could be right. (she chokes on that statement) ;-)

In that case (clearing throat) :-), I'm gonna change the word "dumb." to "totally lacking in common sense." And, I'll add "unable to plan, short term." :blowkiss:
I'll also add, "impulse-driven."

All of those factors could add up to the appearance of stupidity.

Peripherally, I can also see her nurturing a dream of getting out and becoming JB's paralegal. But, a lot of list members have anticipated me, on this. It's not an original perception of mine.
 
  • #397
I see what you are saying. You could be right. (she chokes on that statement) ;-)

In that case (clearing throat) :-), I'm gonna change the word "dumb." to "totally lacking in common sense." And, I'll add "unable to plan, short term." :blowkiss:
I'll also add, "impulse-driven."

All of those factors could add up to the appearance of stupidity.

Peripherally, I can also see her nurturing a dream of getting out and becoming JB's paralegal. But, a lot of list members have anticipated me, on this. It's not an original perception.

Yeah! :clap: (Re first statement)

(Re last statement) Really? We R all so smart together!! :balloons:
 
  • #398
Verité;3774274 said:
Yeah! :clap: (Re first statement)

(Re last statement) Really? We R all so smart together!! :balloons:

That statement is verite (no accent on my 'puter).

One problem that we sometimes all have is..that words are, in and of themselves, poor vehicles for thought. :)
 
  • #399
Verité;3774161 said:
:HBwhiteflag: Brini, this is not to spar but to hopefully broaden the scope.
Intelligence is a multifaceted function where the IQ score measures only the composite or average of combined functions,
while separate functions may be high or average in one area while low in another (or others).

With respect to KC's intelligence, we've all heard examples of her poor common sense judgment suggesting a lowered functioning in that area
both Non-verbally (carrying a body around in a car, though Ted Bundy did that, too, and even had the seat of his VWs removed for that purpose),
as well as Verbally, trying to portray "innocence" in a written verbal statement by giving a 4-hr. time span when she allegedly dropped off a young child.

By contrast, I was struck by how precisely, almost-perfectly she had punctuated that statement, indicating good ability to retain learning
from certain educational achievement, as well as some compulsivity, which can be used to assist intellectual functioning (dotting all i-s, crossing all t-s),
providing everything else is working in tandem. So, I'd suggest that her overall Verbal abilities are average (though she's low in common sense
there, too, as well as low in Non-verbal common sense reasoning). Certain Non-verbal abilities just can't be estimated from a distance for the overall
"smart" or "dumb" score. (My guess is she's reasonably high in Non-verbal abilities that have to do with visual acuity and analytic ability, i.e, as
suggested by her vast photographic repertoire).

I agree she's no Ted Bundy intellectually, but she is reported to be reading the Law in jail, so she may very well recognize the full implications of a
NGBRoI defense and be the one who cancelled that plan, as OLG has suggested. Since verbal abilities can increase into adulthood, maybe she'll
eventually enter the legal profession--if she's acquitted. Smart thinking, KC!

I agree with your "closed system," and having to guess at what's "normal" or" innocent," though with correct models, she's a good mimic.

Disclaimer
The above is based on a review of information available to all lay persons
and is not intended as any type of professional psychological assessment of any person anywhere for any reason.

If what she does is mimic "normal behavior" as people suggest Psychopath's do (which isn't what I think she's doing but for the sake of this quick conversation let's play like I do, do you mind?) Then I agree with you to a degree- she is a far better mimic than her brother is. And HE is the smart(er) one in the family. He is bright(er) yet he does NOT know how to act or express how he feels... it seems to me that he doesn't feel. and can't fake it decently like Casey does (If that's what she is doing).

IMO His lack of human emotions, his ability to keep his cool even while destroying anothers property (no raised voices, no getting red in the face or shaking hands or gritted teeth.. he spoke calmly to a news camera crew, even giggling once or twice while in the middle of it all. And all his other odd behaviors are more like a "Psychopath's" than Casey's are... to me anyway.

Have you checked him out any, any thoughts on him?
 
  • #400
If what she does is mimic "normal behavior" as people suggest Psychopath's do (which isn't what I think she's doing but for the sake of this quick conversation let's play like I do, do you mind?) Then I agree with you to a degree- she is a far better mimic than her brother is. And HE is the smart(er) one in the family. He is bright(er) yet he does NOT know how to act or express how he feels... it seems to me that he doesn't feel. and can't fake it decently like Casey does (If that's what she is doing).

IMO His lack of human emotions, his ability to keep his cool even while destroying anothers property (no raised voices, no getting red in the face or shaking hands or gritted teeth.. he spoke calmly to a news camera crew, even giggling once or twice while in the middle of it all. And all his other odd behaviors are more like a "Psychopath's" than Casey's are... to me anyway.

Have you checked him out any, any thoughts on him?

I was thinking maybe schizoid. That would explain the inapropriate affect.

But, I can't fit in the solid employment and he long-term relationship.

Maybe he's a functioning sociopath? :confused:

I really don't know. I'd love to hear other people's theories.

BTW-- I haven't worked with many schizoids. OR, with many FUNCTIONING sociopaths. ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
2,912
Total visitors
3,048

Forum statistics

Threads
632,569
Messages
18,628,521
Members
243,198
Latest member
ghghhh13
Back
Top