I do have training but my real life experience with homeless persons blows most of my textbook theories right out of the water, so I rely more on my experience than my degrees.
Lets let this play out and see which of us was on target.
Anecdotal personal observations do not "blow science out of the water," because the populations are too limited, and there is no structure to the study. No one person can have observed enough to blow decades of research "out of the water." That's why studies are submitted to referreed journals, before theories are generally accepted.
That's like CA's statements, "it's only science," and "Air samples don't mean anything."
And, the As are not in a homeless population. The dynamics are very different. For instance, a comparatively high degree of schizophrenia is found in that population.
The family have enough serious problems. It's documentable that thay have made a lopt of "conflicting statements" to LE. They have not shown themselves to be helpful to the investigation. It is also documentable that they enabled KC in some of her criminal behaviors.
It is not documentable, at this point, that either A male has ever molested KC. No credible "talking head" shrink has ever suggested it. And, it is a very very hurtful accusation. All of them, so far, have agreed that KC is likely a sociopath
C'man, Turbo! You have posted some really brilliant stuff! I look forward to your posts, as do others.
If you are going to post something like that, substantiate it with some science. if you do have that training. "I'm sure LAs DNA proved that he is the father" don't cut the cake.
If KC married Tony, today, and had his baby, the child would likely be in JUST as much danger as was Klee-- with NO conception mystery. The baby would be in danger: 1) if and when KC felt that her spouse was more attentive to the baby than to her, 2) if the baby got in the way of "fun," and 3) if she and the baby's father broke up, and she was left alone with a child on her hands.
