Article from Psychology today

by **PeterMac** 07.12.13 13:05

Specifically in relation to the Casey Anthony trial, but as relevant to this as any other case.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201107/the-not-so-obvious-lessons-the-casey-anthony-trial

Many in the TV audience had a visceral reaction to Casey Anthony even before the verdict was handed down. Some felt this way as they witnessed the blatant lies she told to police officers trying to find her daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. Others were appalled at her ferocity in arguing with her parents who had done so much to make her life easier and were merely trying to help. Some were angered because the only one hindering the investigation of Caylee Anthony was Casey Anthony, the mother, whose behavior post disappearance was best characterized by her own defense attorney as, "a lying, no-good slut."

1. No remorse or conscience - they don't feel bad about what they do, only getting caught - “ While this didn’t totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, especially given the time that had elapsed, it meant nobody else (including the PJ and the media) could prove otherwise.”
2. Glibness/superficial charm - when they want to, and it benefits them, they act as they need to - they are chameleon like & superficially interesting - Ambassador, running, fund raising
3. Aggressively narcissistic - everything has to be their way, if you don't agree with them, you are a hindrance and an obstacle - Carter-Ruck first point of call.
4. They believe themselves above the law which for them are formalities to bend or break - failure to learn from Portuguese Supreeme Court ruling against them, continue to pursue Amaral
5. Grandiose sense of self-worth - they over value themselves and their needs and devalue the needs or worth of others. “Our holiday too ! ! !”
6. They are pathological liars; lying even when they don't have to and doing so with great facility - Front door using his key -v- Patio door left open for the purpose and almost all statements since.
7. Cunning/manipulative - extremely versatile from a very early age
8. Lack of guilt - a key feature of psychopathy. While others are being destroyed physically or emotionally, they don't feel a thing - BENNETT, AMARAL
9. Emotionally shallow - their emotions are lacking or blunted, or at times inappropriate - day 2 onwards, Especially Day 8 coming out of Church,and all points since.
10. Callous/lack of empathy - don't really care about the feeling of others only themselves TANNER
11. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions - always someone else's fault never their own. _If she had been hurt why would that be our fault
12. High need for stimulation/proneness to boredom - they would rather play than work which is routine and boring - months in PdL jogging and playing tennis
13. Parasitic lifestyle - would rather let others work - better to leech money off of other than earn money - Fund used for Mortgage, and set up to “help the family “
14. Poor behavioral control - irresponsible behavior is a large factor as is putting others in danger - leaving children in unlocked apartment, out of sight even after they had complained specifically about this
15. Promiscuous sexual behavior - what some would call "slutty" behavior - no comment
16. Lack of realistic, long-term goals - they live for the moment without planning for the future - stay in PdL for months, then sudenly go home
17. Impulsiveness - doing what they want when they want as they want - going to sleep on first night whilst every one else was searching. Jaunts to Huelva, no search after one hour the next morning.
18. Criminal versatility - the ability to commit crimes and lie with ease - too many examples to quote
19. Criminal behavior - they routinely steal, cheat, lie, or fail to comply with laws - Kate driving hire car when not a named driver on the insurcance. Lying - again to many to quote
20. Use people - people are to be used or manipulated, not cared for HUBBARD, TANNER, atempt to use OLDFIELD -

by Guest 07.12.13 14:24

The article you linked to was very interesting PeterMac. I found it also goes someway to explaining public expectation of DNA usefulness and the apparent

difficulties of such.

On reading the 'comments' I was led to a book "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stoudt, and thought the following snipped remarks on the subject were

interesting:-
snip-
the chief symptom of which is that that person possesses no conscience. He or she has no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse. And they can do literally anything at all and feel absolutely no guilt.

How do we recognize the remorseless? One of their chief characteristics is a kind of glow or charisma that makes sociopaths more charming or interesting than the other people around them. They’re more spontaneous, more intense, more complex, or even sexier than everyone else, making them tricky to identify and leaving us easily seduced. Fundamentally, sociopaths are different because they cannot love. Sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate and thrill to win.

snip-
the devastating impact people without conscience are able to have, to an incisive and broad ranging overview of our understanding of morality. Dealing with sociopaths is tough, not least because they are arch-manipulators who know how to shape our emotional responses unseen and un-noticed by us because we make the assumption that they are driven by the same impulses as we are. this error is the most destructive one we can make - sociopaths are not 'like us', they can not 'be reasoned with' or 'reformed'.

by Guest 07.12.13 14:32

Yes, a great article.

I also "liked" his explanation why this jury would let Casey Anthony go. It's all pre-planned. Fortunately, there are not many states anymore where juries bring in the verdict. And I understand, the way things are handled in the U.K., such situations wouldn't possibly occur. I do, though, prefer ruling by 1 or more intelligent, educated, experienced judges ...

On the same site there are quite a number of other good articles by Joe Navarro.

ETA the name rings a bell somewhere in the back of my head. Could he have one of the speakers at the CEOPS seminar, where GM was also invited ... ?

by lj 07.12.13 18:29

Yep, fits the conning couple very well.

I hate to say so, but I have been attacked in the past for calling them psychopaths. But I stand by my conviction, and I believe it is part of the reason why they still are not in jail, and are still be cuddled and promoted.

There have been so many events screaming psychopathy, of course the "why didn't you come" or the "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?". Don't forget Kate's sneer:
Article from Psychology today Kates_12

More current the persecution of Tony and Dr. Amaral, of course.

One of the ongoing abominations that enrages me everytime I see it mentioned, is Kate being ambassador for missing children. It takes a psychopathic mind to be able to take a position like that considering that they are in essence responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Because what ever theory you believe, there are 2 possibilities: their "not being there" caused harm to come to Madeleine, or, even worse, their being there was the harm.

At least in the Casy Anthony it was clear that the selected jury did not have the facilities to make a sound decicsion.
It does not bode well for the world that in the Case of Madeleine these pathetic parents are still being lauded and protected.

PS I hate the jury system, at least as it is in the US. But then I have seen rather shameful mishaps by judges in the Dutch system too.

by Guest 07.12.13 19:53

[quote="lj" [...]

PS I hate the jury system, at least as it is in the US. But then I have seen rather shameful mishaps by judges in the Dutch system too.[/quote]***
Yes, lj, I remember a couple of them ... sad

by Guest 07.12.13 22:21

Châtelaine wrote:[quote="lj" [...]

PS I hate the jury system, at least as it is in the US. But then I have seen rather shameful mishaps by judges in the Dutch system too.

***
Yes, lj, I remember a couple of them ... sad

[/quote]

Couple of months ago a client of mine who had been kicked senseless by an over-eager policeman heard the judge remark she owed it to herself for trying to protect her son from the same treatment

This, after the State had repeatedly refused our request to have the judge hear the policeman involved as a witness.

So my client was convicted as charged, plus some extra

We were unhappy with this, as you can imagine. Appeals are pending

by Guest 07.12.13 22:41

Portia wrote:
Couple of months ago a client of mine who had been kicked senseless by an over-eager policeman heard the judge remark she owed it to herself for trying to protect her son from the same treatment

This, after the State had repeatedly refused our request to have the judge hear the policeman involved as a witness.

So my client was convicted as charged, plus some extra

We were unhappy with this, as you can imagine. Appeals are pending

***
Good luck! Have you told de Telegraaf already?

by Mirage 07.12.13 23:27

lj wrote:Yep, fits the conning couple very well.

I hate to say so, but I have been attacked in the past for calling them psychopaths. But I stand by my conviction, and I believe it is part of the reason why they still are not in jail, and are still be cuddled and promoted.

There have been so many events screaming psychopathy, of course the "why didn't you come" or the "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?". Don't forget Kate's sneer:

More current the persecution of Tony and Dr. Amaral, of course.

One of the ongoing abominations that enrages me everytime I see it mentioned, is Kate being ambassador for missing children. It takes a psychopathic mind to be able to take a position like that considering that they are in essence responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Because what ever theory you believe, there are 2 possibilities: their "not being there" caused harm to come to Madeleine, or, even worse, their being there was the harm.

At least in the Casy Anthony it was clear that the selected jury did not have the facilities to make a sound decicsion.
It does not bode well for the world that in the Case of Madeleine these pathetic parents are still being lauded and protected.

PS I hate the jury system, at least as it is in the US. But then I have seen rather shameful mishaps by judges in the Dutch system too.

Bl**** hell. That's a face to turn milk.

The first one is the "she moved on" sneer. Poor child. I can't recall what she was saying in the second one.

by **tigger** 08.12.13 6:33

That sneer - I've always interpreted it as:'What do you want to ask that for? Ask about me! It's all about me!'

The CSI effect. - great artcle. I do know at least one person -not ever successful - that's another point. Surely it would be rare for a psychopath to succeed unless others support him/her.

And From the article:

By being over reliant on forensic evidence, jurors erroneously reject other kinds of information which should be considered. For instance, in America, the people who most often hurt children are the parents or care givers; similarly spouses or former relations are usually responsible for adult deaths at home. So we don't have to look far. And in these cases, DNA is not an issue because these individuals have, or have had legitimate access to the victim so, unless they cut themselves while committing the crime, DNA is irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that there are many ways to kill without leaving any kind of DNA evidence, especially where the victim is small or can't resist.

I'm sure that experienced officers often know right away who has committed the crime. Then finding enough evidence to satisfy the CPS and then to find the jury unable to put two and two together isnot ajob I'd envy.
As the article says, DNA is irrelevant if the crime is committed by a family member or carer. That would cover what percentage of all crimes?

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 7:25

Everything I have read about and seen of the McCanns supports my opinion that one is a pyschopath and one is a narcissist.

This a long read but it is enlightening, as is Hervey Cleckley's seminal work which is can accessed via this link: www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

by Guest 08.12.13 9:25

Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote:
Couple of months ago a client of mine who had been kicked senseless by an over-eager policeman heard the judge remark she owed it to herself for trying to protect her son from the same treatment

This, after the State had repeatedly refused our request to have the judge hear the policeman involved as a witness.

So my client was convicted as charged, plus some extra

We were unhappy with this, as you can imagine. Appeals are pending
***
Good luck! Have you told de Telegraaf already?

No. In my 40 years with the Bar, I've never done such a thing.

Justice works in silence.

by Guest 08.12.13 10:06

Mirage wrote:

Bl**** hell. That's a face to turn milk.

The first one is the "she moved on" sneer. Poor child. I can't recall what she was saying in the second one.

Everytime I see those images it reminds me of this animated .gif of fellow scousester Kerry Katona that you see around the place.

Article from Psychology today 29e56dj

by Ashwarya 08.12.13 13:07

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Everytime I see those images it reminds me of this animated .gif of fellow scousester Kerry Katona that you see around the place.

A penchant for similar "jewellery" as well, but I think Kerry looks the more maternal of the two.

by Guest 08.12.13 13:55

What's that with both these ladies' upper lips, top left side?

Miss Piggy, yes, but it's not a trait you see very often outside the Muppet show

by lj 08.12.13 14:43

Mirage wrote:
lj wrote:Yep, fits the conning couple very well.

I hate to say so, but I have been attacked in the past for calling them psychopaths. But I stand by my conviction, and I believe it is part of the reason why they still are not in jail, and are still be cuddled and promoted.

There have been so many events screaming psychopathy, of course the "why didn't you come" or the "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?". Don't forget Kate's sneer:

More current the persecution of Tony and Dr. Amaral, of course.

One of the ongoing abominations that enrages me everytime I see it mentioned, is Kate being ambassador for missing children. It takes a psychopathic mind to be able to take a position like that considering that they are in essence responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Because what ever theory you believe, there are 2 possibilities: their "not being there" caused harm to come to Madeleine, or, even worse, their being there was the harm.

At least in the Casy Anthony it was clear that the selected jury did not have the facilities to make a sound decicsion.
It does not bode well for the world that in the Case of Madeleine these pathetic parents are still being lauded and protected.

PS I hate the jury system, at least as it is in the US. But then I have seen rather shameful mishaps by judges in the Dutch system too.
Bl**** hell. That's a face to turn milk.

The first one is the "she moved on" sneer. Poor child. I can't recall what she was saying in the second one.

It's about the same event, other occasion.

For those who don't know: this is Kate's reaction on Madeleine's question "why didn't you come when we were crying".

by Guest 08.12.13 15:07

I'd rather seek medical advice from Kerry than Kate!

Perhaps they both suffer from a rare syndrome called Liverpool Loose-Lip?

by Guest 08.12.13 15:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'd rather seek medical advice from Kerry than Kate!

Perhaps they both suffer from a rare syndrome called Liverpool Loose-Lip?

Capital!

Also known as Trip-L

by Guest 08.12.13 16:01

I've tried to imitate that in front of the mirror. I do have many talents, but that TRIP-L I cannot do ...

by lj 08.12.13 18:09

Châtelaine wrote:

I've tried to imitate that in front of the mirror. I do have many talents, but that TRIP-L I cannot do ...

You have to drink quite a lot of New Sealand wine to get that far. That French stuff is good for nothing winkwink

by Who?What?Where? 17.12.13 0:52

Your thread starter post is brilliant, Petermac.

If I still wore a hat, I would take it off to you. A truly excellent summation.

by **tigger** 17.12.13 12:15

A question: are psychopaths ever original thinkers? I believe it's next to impossible for them to construct an original plan. They will commit crimes, minor and major but apart from using lies and subterfuge are not even good at hiding their crimes.
E.g. I ate all the cookies I'll just say I wasn't there, someone else did it, I saw them.

They want: they take. There is simply no mechanism to stop themselves. Their lies are so transparant, they're almost child-like.
'You've got cookie crumbs and chocolate on your face'
'I was cleaning the floor and wiped my face'

Psychopaths imo cannot be succesful criminals on their own. They need expert help to plan any crime more complicated than an opportunistic smash and grab raid.
They cannot display remorse and pity. If they commit murder they can only feel pity for themselves. For being treated badly and can have an everlasting hatred of those who have put them in this position.

Think of a human being - take away reason and accountability .... and you have a psychopath.

by Guest 17.12.13 12:25

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/psychopath-night/4od

A recent Channel 4 programme on the subject of psychopaths.

by bobbin 17.12.13 14:23

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://www.channel4.com/programmes/psychopath-night/4od

A recent Channel 4 programme on the subject of psychopaths.

I can't play it here in France, but if it's what I think it was, there is a 'test' you can do, to ascertain your level of psychopathy. Very interesting to do if it's available. high5

by Woofer 17.12.13 15:22

I`m not sure about psychopaths not being creative - remember they are renowned for being manipulative which requires creativity. For example they had the creativity to say that Sean was eating sea bass and the `why didn`t you come when Sean and I were crying`. Hardly ingenious I know - or it wouldn`t have been so transparent.

by **tigger** 17.12.13 20:01

Woofer wrote:I`m not sure about psychopaths not being creative - remember they are renowned for being manipulative which requires creativity. For example they had the creativity to say that Sean was eating sea bass and the `why didn`t you come when Sean and I were crying`. Hardly ingenious I know - or it wouldn`t have been so transparent.

That 's what I mean, their lies are infantile. Think of the excuses re the car, just like the cookie jar example.