Casey & Family Psychological Profile #7

[OneLostGrl]

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.

Great post, thanks!

The evidence/lack of it is my biggest problem in this case. If she did this, I'm hoping they have more evidence than what we have seen or I think she may just walk. The only things I'm sure of in this case is that Casey is sane and that she comes from quite a dysfunctional home. That's it.

 

[OneLostGrl]

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?

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. ;-)

Ya know, I have thought maybe a tad of Asbergers

 

[Verité]

Freaky, huh? Lee is the same way. Can't understand a thing they say.

I haven't "checked him out" yet, coz like hard-to-read books from a library, I just leave them be & get the videos!

I have to thank-you 4 your above post yesterday & the chuckle it brought to me as I laffed at the memory of myself replaying videos, trying to
grasp a simple meaning behind a convoluted statement.

My emotional response (which is often a good clue about what another is eliciting once it's sifted from one's own "stuff," of course) is sadness.
Not sure why. I'm just not ready to go there yet!

 

[cecybeans]

Thanks for all of the information on forensic psycholinguistics - it's certainly an interesting and useful contribution to the criminal justice field. I'm wondering how difficult it is, or will be, to factor in the changing language patterns of kids nowadays when determining general verbal abilities, levels of competence, etc. My sister (who has an advanced degree in linguistics) and I (who have taught adolescents and adults grammar and comp) have been appalled at the deterioration of language skills that has taken place in less than a generation, most likely due to a McLuhan-esque switch in media types. We are just not as literate a culture as we used to be, and receive our information visually and audibly more often. Emails and texting have further eroded, or at least made inconsistent, some skills that used to be baseline. As a teacher, I was instructed to ignore "fundamentals" like grammar and syntax, and found that language structures kids were absorbing from TV and movies were reproduced in ways that sounded stilted (much like some LEO's who try to imitate "legalese" in formal reports.)

Since that metamorphosis is ongoing, do we even have current benchmarks that can be transferred into the social sciences that accurately differentiate between psychological conditions and the general cultural evolution of English (not to mention the growing number of children who process English in this country as a second language and what it does to their verbal and written communication)? I was just wondering, as it would seem that some of those standards may be undergoing rapid change and might skew conclusions.

 

[Brini]

Ya know, I have thought maybe a tad of Asbergers

There's a thought! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Brini]

Great post, thanks!

The evidence/lack of it is my biggest problem in this case. If she did this, I'm hoping they have more evidence than what we have seen or I think she may just walk. The only things I'm sure of in this case is that Casey is sane and that she comes from quite a dysfunctional home. That's it.

I'm pretty sure the trunk stuff will be unexplainable, even by talented counsel. Which KC does not have.

I'm guessing there is evidence we have not seen, as well. Maybe some very good stuff.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I'm pretty sure the trunk stuff will be unexplainable, even by talented counsel. Which KC does not have.

I'm guessing there is evidence we have not seen, as well. Maybe some very good stuff.

I'm hoping so. I get a great vibe from Yuri- I tend to wanna trust him, (not easy for someone like me nor does it happen, like EVER. LOL.. so I'm letting myself go with it-). So I'm keeping my hopes up that they have everything they need to prove Csey did this. My guess is they do.

 

[OneLostGrl]

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.

Yesss. Yes you did- I remember you gave me links... what great reading! I was trying to remember when and where I'd read all that stuff just the other day- could not remember for the life of me. It all seemed pretty spot on too!

 

[songline]

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: This is for the humor thread you are a funny girl.

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.
To the extent that there are 2 minds there will be two opinions at least on some issues, but with so many minds definitely you can count on many views. LOL
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?

OLG I agree that her emotions are frozen and that in itself is not a good sign.
But Like I always said She is guilty but I do not know of what yet. Certainly it is only Negligence that would allow her to leave Caylee with unsavory people. Certainly she is part of a diversion plan. That is enough... she may be guilty of much more but that I do not know yet.
Thank God for our differences :toast:

IMHO the difference between an open mind and one that is not - would be an open mind is open to see many options, and open to change their mind.
A closed mind is always right no matter what you say, or what else shows up.
When people say Casey is evil, murderer, etc... They have decided and from this point on they are just
gathering evidence to validate themselves.
I am glad for Casey's sake that they will not be on the Jury.
I have to say I myself have changed my mind in this case a number of times, due to either information that did or did not come forth. Also I do trust my instincts, they have been very good to me.
A closed mind needs to make other posters wrong as often as they can. LOL

 

[kageykaren]

I'm hoping so. I get a great vibe from Yuri- I tend to wanna trust him, (not easy for someone like me nor does it happen, like EVER. LOL.. so I'm letting myself go with it-). So I'm keeping my hopes up that they have everything they need to prove Csey did this. My guess is they do.

OLG Trust that vibe Yuri is sending out and just go with it. Must tell you I go with Nick Savages vibe! LOL! Feel like I'm cheating as I type write next to him! Were so bombarded with hearing about men of stature falling from grace that it does make it difficult to trust men in athority to follow their moral compass including LE. Look at the gentleman who just got fired after lying to superiors over a broad named KC.

 

[Verité]

. . .Last year when Lenamon came out with his argument for removing the DP from the case, he wrote something to the effect that it was likely death had occurred due to an accidental overdose, IIRC, and that KC may have had mitigating factors such as PPD (which most people derided as being ridiculous since Caylee was nearly three when this happened, and KCcertainly wasn't depressed enough not to party like it was a new millennium).

He was not advocating her innocence of the crime but simply looking for mitigating factors that would remove the death penalty from the table. I don't see how he could have done so without tacitly agreeing that she might be guilty to begin with.

I'm back reading the beginning of this thread slowly & carefully & am amazed at how much I must skim by. The above, for example, surprised me
in that I don't recall hearing it last year (or reading it this year!) & wonder if you recall any sources, cecybeans? To me, this says a LOT about motive,
why the California personal injury attorney is on the case, etc. and leads to more questions.

Also, you must've been reading a tiny part of my mind--or I yours--as I was writing about the KC intellectual factors, and you were posting on how the
measuring of certain abilities will probably show wide variability from current standard tests and norms obtained before the media explosion.
For example, I was thinking about how KC's Non-verbal ability on tasks which require coordinated eye-hand functions is probably very good --12 texts an hour,
right, i.e. one every 5 minutes. In view of this, how could her mothering abilities reflect the sensitive, empathic attunement required for a child who's just turning 3 years? Accidental overdose, you say . . . .?

 

[nssherlock]

: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.

Bolded by me: I'm not sure I understand how you can get to "average verbal skills"..........I have no particular training in assessing skill levels in this area, but I'm thinking that if most people can't understand (or make sense of) most of what I say then I may need to develop those skills further. I'm not being disrespectful I promise - just trying to understand.
I have found it confusing that I cannot understand most of what the A's (all of em) say - but I find her text messages to be pretty clear. Maybe she reverts to CaseySpeak only when she's dissembling, as suggested earlier. (I learned a new word today -dissemble)

A lot of good Food for Thought on this thread, thanks!......

 

[OneLostGrl]

OLG Trust that vibe Yuri is sending out and just go with it. Must tell you I go with Nick Savages vibe! LOL! Feel like I'm cheating as I type write next to him! Were so bombarded with hearing about men of stature falling from grace that it does make it difficult to trust men in athority to follow their moral compass including LE. Look at the gentleman who just got fired after lying to superiors over a broad named KC.

Bold is mine-

Aww, you do? Like for real?!

ETA- Your namesake is sitting on my lap

 

[cecybeans]

I'm back reading the beginning of this thread slowly & carefully & am amazed at how much I must skim by. The above, for example, surprised me
in that I don't recall hearing it last year (or reading it this year!) & wonder if you recall any sources, cecybeans? To me, this says a LOT about motive,
why the California personal injury attorney is on the case, etc. and leads to more questions.

Also, you must've been reading a tiny part of my mind--or I yours--as I was writing about the KC intellectual factors, and you were posting on how the
measuring of certain abilities will probably show wide variability from current standard tests and norms obtained before the media explosion.
For example, I was thinking about how KC's Non-verbal ability on tasks which require coordinated eye-hand functions is probably very good --12 texts an hour,
right, i.e. one every 5 minutes. In view of this, how could her mothering abilities reflect the sensitive, empathic attunement required for a child who's just turning 3 years? Accidental overdose, you say . . . .?

I believe the source originally was Lenamon's formal brief or motion he compiled to get the DP off the table. It came complete with photos of KC as a child, IIRC, and mentions of other "similar" cases of young females convicted of murdering their children. There may be threads that discussed it at length here; I'll do a proper search tomorrow. There may also be a version of the document on his website - he did some kind of white paper in which he discusses the case research he did to put it together and I read it there a while ago. I'm sure it will amuse you psychology professionals; it certainly did us laypeople.

As far as his admission of it being used to show mitigating factors that might remove the DP from the table, I believe he recently stated this on NG (and maybe even JVM) in the last week or so, and it seemed consistent with an earlier interview he did on NG in November of last year when this document was proffered to the court.

As far as her almost robotic ability to marathon text at near the speed of sound; my favorite quote was from a telecom expert on NG last year who said that KC was on the phone and computer so much that if Caylee had wanted her diaper changed she would have had to send her mother a text message.

 

[Verité]

I believe the source originally was Lenamon's formal brief or motion he compiled to get the DP off the table. It came complete with photos of KC as a child, IIRC, and mentions of other "similar" cases of young females convicted of murdering their children. There may be threads that discussed it at length here; I'll do a proper search tomorrow. There may also be a version of the document on his website - he did some kind of white paper in which he discusses the case research he did to put it together and I read it there a while ago. I'm sure it will amuse you psychology professionals; it certainly did us laypeople.

As far as his admission of it being used to show mitigating factors that might remove the DP from the table, I believe he recently stated this on NG (and maybe even JVM) in the last week or so, and it seemed consistent with an earlier interview he did on NG in November of last year when this document was proffered to the court.

As far as her almost robotic ability to marathon text at near the speed of sound; my favorite quote was from a telecom expert on NG last year who said that KC was on the phone and computer so much that if Caylee had wanted her diaper changed she would have had to send her mother a text message.

What a post! Thank you so much. That last sentence is etched in my mind and, sadly, I'm wondering about a generation of youngsters out there who are probably experiencing similar, though hopefully not as extreme, parental distraction. I look forward to any further Lenamon info.

 

[Verité]

Bolded by me: I'm not sure I understand how you can get to "average verbal skills"..........I have no particular training in assessing skill levels in this area, but I'm thinking that if most people can't understand (or make sense of) most of what I say then I may need to develop those skills further. I'm not being disrespectful I promise - just trying to understand.

If most can't understand what you "say," lets suppose due to dissembling or some other interference with spoken verbal abilities, you could still be
average, bright normal, or superior in your general fund of word knowledge (vocabulary) where you might know & write the meaning of every word on a
vocabulary test. Perhaps only 1% of all the people in your age range in the population would know all these words, so you'd wind up in the superior
range on that function. (Schizophrenia is a disorder where folks often may be brilliant, but unable to communicate verbally so others understand. The
film, "A Beautiful Mind" is an example of this--which I'm not saying applies to KC.) Anyhow, totaling up the scores of all the different verbal skills,
one hi, one low, one average, might, when averaged together, wind up in the "average" or mid range. I know I've repeated the word "average"
for some slightly different applications, but I hope you get what I mean.

 

[songline]

I am enjoying the conversations of late very much.

Some know so much about variations of mental disability.
While I refrain from diagnosis since I never worked with her, it is clear she is challenged.
Clearly so is the entire family.

When I first brought up the subject of insanity and or the subject of mentally/emotionally
challenged I was met with much resistance and negation of her disability.
The replies were most often how evil Casey is. hmmmm.
At last it feels like a fair trial is possible.
But I am furiouser at how much was destroyed to avoid a fair trial.
Thanks to IMO George. I hope he joins KC. :behindbar

Funny when I opened the thread on "Caylee has no Representation: many opposed me.
when I opened the thread about follow the money that one got shut down.
None of which made me just lurk and stay mum...LOL

I want to take this opportunity to thank so many who PMd me and were willing to
look much further then the eye can lead. I told you I'd say it like it is at the risk
of being in the minority.
I LOVE YOU - CAYLEE does too :blowkiss: SHE DESERVES THE TRUTH.

I will not have much time in the next few days....So carry on, have fun
and keep all the good stuff coming. Good night.

 

[kageykaren]

Bold is mine-

Aww, you do? Like for real?!

ETA- Your namesake is sitting on my lap

I screw up posts like I do jokes. I meant to say," As my husband lays next to me, I feel like Im cheating on him as I type his name out.

 

[cecybeans]

What a post! Thank you so much. That last sentence is etched in my mind and, sadly, I'm wondering about a generation of youngsters out there who are probably experiencing similar, though hopefully not as extreme, parental distraction. I look forward to any further Lenamon info.

And their offpsring aside, from a personal angle, I worry about their attention to the road when behind a vehicle. I've already been rear-ended by someone who freely admitted she was "reading" years ago. That certainly isn't nearly as popular as texting...

 

[songline]

OLG Trust that vibe Yuri is sending out and just go with it. Must tell you I go with Nick Savages vibe! LOL! Feel like I'm cheating as I type write next to him! Were so bombarded with hearing about men of stature falling from grace that it does make it difficult to trust men in authority to follow their moral compass including LE. Look at the gentleman who just got fired after lying to superiors over a broad named KC.

So true and so sad
I don't want to go OT but it is wide range. (wish we had a cry smiley)