REGISTER | LOGIN
By | July 6, 2011 114 Comments

Frank Farley, clueless expert, on the Casey Anthony verdict

Yesterday I happened to be watching CNN as the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial was announced. Like much of America, I was stunned that she was acquitted. From the reports I’ve seen about Anthony’s pathological lying and lack of concern about her missing daughter, I am confident that she exhibits sociopathic traits. A criminal profiler came out and said on national television that she is a psychopath. See:

Profiler says letters show Casey Anthony to be a psychopath

All of us at Lovefraud know what sociopaths/psychopaths are capable of. So I was more stunned by one of the so-called CNN pundits, Dr. Frank Farley, who came on the show later. He said that the prosecution’s theory of Casey Anthony’s motive for murder was ludicrous. No mother, he claimed, would kill her child simply so she could go out and party.

Farley actually posted his views in a blog piece on CNN, in an article called Infanticide in order to party: A nonsense motive. He wrote:

No credible motivational psychology that I know of would support that a single mother who seemed to love her child and who had lots of back-up parenting, in the grandparents and perhaps even from a brother, would go through the careful planning and complex, unpredictable, scary process of killing and disposing of her child in order to get a bit more free time.

This could not be true, unless she was seriously mentally ill, and no available evidence showed that. To go against that deep human instinct to take care of a child, and instead kill that child, demands a very significant reward in the opposite direction, and partying doesn’t rise to that level.

What sane human being could wake up in the morning and say, “Gee, I could have a fun time if I killed my daughter.” There was also no evidence that Caylee was a difficult child whose behavior could lead her mother into a homicidal rage. This whole scheme goes against our deepest instincts rooted in thousands of years of evolution.

Obviously, the guy knows nothing about sociopaths. These disordered individuals have no love motivation. They are capable of killing for the flimsiest of reasons. Take the case of Diane Downs, cited in Dr. Robert Hare’s book, Without Conscience. She shot her three children in 1983 so she could carry on an affair.

ABC News recently aired interviews with Diane Downs, along with a clinical diagnosis: psychopath. Watch the videos here:

1983 Video: Mom who shot kids speaks on ABCNews.go.com.

Professor Farley

Now here’s what is really scary:  Frank Farley, Ph.D., is a psychologist and professor at Temple University, and former president of the American Psychological Association. He teaches educational psychology to graduate students. Here’s his biography:

Frank Farley, Ph.D., Temple University College of Education

Farley has come up with this goofy theory of “Type T Personalities.” The “T,” he says, stands for “thrill-seeking,” and certain people are driven to a life of constant stimulation and risk-taking. In fact, he recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, claiming that this is why politicians cheat on their wives. I mentioned it in a recent blog post:

More on powerful men behaving badly

Actually, cheating politicians are probably displaying their sociopathic tendencies—grandiosity, overactive sex drive, recklessness, sense of entitlement. But Farley doesn’t get it. He also doesn’t get that it is quite possible for a woman to kill her child for barely any motivation.

And this is what he is teaching to his educational psychology students. No wonder so many people do not know that the sociopathic personality disorder exists.


114
Comment on this article

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Ox Drover

Wow, wonder if this guy ever heard of Susan Smith who drove her children into a lake so she could “party” with her new BF, or how about that woman just this year who smothered her two little kids and then pushed her car off a ramp into a creek supposedly because her own mother was nagging her to take care of the kids instead of party all the time?

I don’t care how many PhDs this man has he is an idiot! Sheesh. In his case it means PILED HIGHER AND DEEPER! Wonder how high he would score on a narcissistic check list! Also proves that lots of degrees and credentials don’t necessarily mean one has any common sense.

Ox Drover

ps. the real answer is that the SAME person that is the “real killer” of the baby is also the “real killer” of Nichole Brown Simpson…I hope the cops start looking immediately as this person is now a SERIAL killer. Maybe they will let OJ out of prison to help Casey look for him. (tongue in cheek here guys, just to make sure you know!) Sheesh….

Twice Betrayed

Eh, this whole Anthony thing-from family to jury-was/is about $$. Think about it. Even the jury is corrupt. One juror is already open for an interview but for money only and lots of it. The defense attorneys probably rubbed their demonic money grubbing paws the minute this young psychopath crossed their threshold. Get her acquitted, $$$$$$! Baby blood money for EVERYONE! Long, public trial of a beautiful murdered little girl and a young, attractive, lying, immoral mom. Oh yeah, public sympathy, attention and outrage over an acquittal. I smell greedy rats from start to finish.

donna dixon

I was OUTRAGED when I heard the jury’s verdict on Casey Anthony. What mother in their RIGHT mind doesn’t report their child missing for 31 days…then gets a tatoo “Beautiful Life” and hits the party circuit? Better yet…I wonder what the jury was thinking when they read Casey’s journal where she wrote she felt she had made the “right decision” during the time little Caylee was missing.

And if the jury found her guilty on LYING TO THE POLICE do they honestly believe anything she said about her father or brother would have been TRUE??? The woman hadn’t worked at Disney World in 2 Years!!! GIMME A BREAK!

What scares me most is the validation this VERDICT gives to other sociopaths ~ “You CAN commit MURDER and get away with it!”

DISGUSTING!!!!!!

skylar

I think Farley is a sociopath who wants to extend cover to all other sociopaths by teaching lies. I don’t believe he is clueless at all. As a psychologist, it’s simply not possible that he has never read about sociopaths. It’s not possible.

Ox Drover

Dear Sky,

Sugar like all psychopaths who READ about psychopaths, they don’t think it APPLIES to them…..ROTFLMAO SNORT! THEY ARE SPECIAL!

Twice Betrayed

sky: agree.

Constantine

Hmmmmm – where is Candice Delong when you need her? I would love to hear Ms. D’s thoughts on this case – but if she’s been on the air, I must have missed it. Anyway, I guess this means that “Deadly Women” will at least have enough new material for another season!

I have noticed that a lot of the “real experts” tend to shy away from the media circuses associated with these type of cases. Hare, for example (to all appearances a man of great dignity) flat out refused to go on Larry King when OJ was driving down the road during the now infamous “White Blazer chase”. Funny how that works.

All the same, I think this would be a good time to get a Love Fraud person on the radio show Coast to Coast. Donna should call them – I bet she’d have a good chance of getting an interview. (Barbara Oakley was already a guest, and for those interested her full interview is on Youtube.) Some of the people on there are a bit nutty, but they also get quite respectable guests like Michio Kaku and Edgar Mitchell. (It’s also the most popular and listened to radio show in North America.) At any rate, the Casey Anthony trial would be a nice lead in to a general discussion of Psychopathy. So get on the phone, Donna, what are you waiting for?!

Louise

Whew, that woman from 1983 is a total nut job.

skylar

The defense reminded me of an episode on a tv show. It was either boston legal or the practice, in which the legal team developed a defense strategy of blaming someone else. This raised reasonable doubt because the other person COULD have done it. After acquital, the other person was arrested and the defense strategy turned around and blamed the first defendant. Because of double jeapardy, the first defendant was safe. I’m not remembering it exactly, but I think that’s where this defense team got this strategy. It worked on tv, so why not?

skylar

Constantine,
my exSpath was obsessed with that show, Coast to Coast. He sat in his car and listened to it for hours until 3AM. All that alien crap and ufo’s just fascinated him. But what he was really into were the old recordings of Father Malachi Martin, the exorcist. I heard him talk about him and just ignored it, thinking it was just a kooky thing that intrigued him. Later, I re-read “People of the Lie” by Dr. Scott Peck and realized that Malachi Martin was a friend of Scott Peck and he really did do exorcisms. My spath was obsessed with this because he actually believes that he is possessed by the devil and that is the reason he does so much evil.

Sheesh! even in his fantasies, he won’t accept responsibility for his behavior. He has to blame the devil. what a dork! He isn’t possessed by the devil, he IS the devil.

Ox Drover

I just saw an interview on the TV news with one of the ALTERNATE jurors and he said that the prosecution “didn’t prove HOW the baby died” (I mean what does it take to prove the baby was murdered?!!!!!! DUH?) and a bunch of other comments about as DUMB. I think TV has some how screwed up COMMON SENSE about a murder case. Do jurors think you have to prove with a VIDEO TAPE of someone killing someone else to have enough evidence to convict them? This aint’ CSI for goodness sakes< this is REAL LIFE.

What does a woman have to do in order to show someone she has a connection to the death of her baby while she parties hardy and gets a tat that says "beautiful life" when he baby is DEAD and she knows it?

There's supposed to be a special news thing on tonight at 10/9 central I'll probably watch it and SCREAM AT THE TV!!!!!! Good thing I live far enough away from other people that they won't arrest me for being crazy or drunk!

Constantine

Sky,

Wow, that’s really interesting – Malachi Martin you say?! I don’t know what to make of him personally (he’s was a highly controversial figure during his life). I read his “Hostage to the Devil” when I was younger, and it is probably the best written account of exorcism. (Martin also had the “gift of the gab” to an unusual degree – something that makes me a bit suspicious!) In fairness, though, the book is spooky as hell – even if you don’t believe in such things!

Oh, and that reminds me. There’s another interview where Martin seems to suggest that Peck himself was “possessed” in later life. (He doesn’t mention Peck’s name, but it seems very clear to me that that’s the person to whom he is referring.) I’m a scientific rationalist myself, but as a mythical way of decribing the disorder, “possession” is probably as good a term as any!

I know I’ve mentioned your spaths’ preoccupation with demonic possession before. But I wonder why it was that he felt that way? (Besides the simple failure to accept responsibiltiy for his own actions!) Did he ever speak of it in any detail? I’d be interested in knowing any details that you feel like sharing….It’s an interesting twist on the pathology, at any rate.

Perhaps we should call Father Amorth (the chief exorcist in Rome) to take another look at Casey Anthony? She does have thoes empty black reptilian eyes!

Louise

Oxy:

What does it matter HOW the child died? The child is dead…murdered! It drives me crazy!!

I am going to watch that special tonight. Haha, I cracked up about you screaming at the TV!!! Not to make light of the situation, but I know what you mean! I am so angry about this.

Louise

Oxy:

I hope you know I wasn’t yelling at you.

Ox Drover

Louise I know you weren’t yellling at me, sheet I am YELLING AT THE SYSTEM THAT LETS CASEY GO FREE!!!! Man, alive!!!! I can’t believe it, that juror sounded like a complete idiot!!!!!

And really, does it matter if she smothered to death on chloroform or if she smothered with the tape or if casey choked her first? HOW? It doesn’t matter!!!! The child was MURDERED!

Hell even in California they could convict Scott Peterson and there wasn’t any way to TELL HOW Laci died, her head was gone! So does that mean she wasn’t murdered? California’s courts are crazy but at least they are more sane than Florida’s.

I AM LIVID!

skylar

Constantine,
It seems to me that my spath believed in God, which is sort of unusual for a spath. Most are atheist afaik. They reject authority of any kind, so they reject the idea of God. But spath did believe in God, based on his letter to God that I found in the bible, which he wrote when he was very sick. So I guess it was his belief in the supernatural that made him believe in the devil as well. He didn’t talk about it to me though. The only reason I know is because of certain looks he gave me when I mentioned that when he snored, he sounded exactly like a demon in a possessed person (he really did). His face froze and it looked like his mask was slipping…He gave me a piercing look and I just looked away.

I feel like there was another time I mentioned possession and he gave me that same look, but I can’t remember what it was. I just know he was keenly aware of his desire to do evil, but didn’t know where it came from. I now believe it had to do with identifying with his father, who was also a spath. The way he talked of him, it was clear he was very attached to him.

As far as Casey Anthony, she looks like she has horns. Did anyone else notice that strange forhead?

Constantine

Thanks Sky,

Very interesting….However, strange as it seems, I think that belief in God is, oddly enough, not at all incompatible with being a Psychopath. Obviously it doesn’t make sense to us, but somehow I think it’s quite often the case.

Ted Bundy also claimed to have the feeling of being “taken over” by an outside entity. Likewise “The Son of Sam” (whom Martin actually interviewed in prison), and many others. Obviously we have to take these statements with a very large grain of salt, since they are pathological liars. But I think some of them might actually perceive it that way. I’m not saying it corresponds to a reality, but the FEELING of being “taken over” might possibly be real. I don’t know…

Casey Anthony actually rather resembles my spath. And yes, I have noticed the horns thing! I would be as livid as Oxy, but I just have so little faith in human nature anymore, that I pretty much take these “outrages” as a matter of course.

Louise

Oxy:

Good, I’m glad you realize I wasn’t yelling at you. It just makes me so mad, too!! Man!!! What station is that special supposed to be on?

Good point about Scott Peterson!!! You are right…Laci didn’t even have a head and he was still convicted. Something is really fishy about this story I think. I just heard on the radio this evening that one of the jurors said that all the jurors were crying and sick to their stomaches when they decided on the verdict. They knew she was guilty, but because there wasn’t enough evidence, they knew they couldn’t find her guilty. Why not?? Are the jurors coached by someone??

skylar

Yep Constantine, I feel more sick than livid.
She seems to be a rather stupid spath, perhaps she’ll hang herself.

Louise

skylar:

In my opinion, I would say it is pretty unusual for a true spath to believe in God, but I am sure there are some like yours. Mine did not.

Yeah, Casey does have a weird head. And I bet she is pregnant. Her face is full and her body is getting weird shaped.

Redwald

I’m MORE speechless at Frank Farley than I am at the verdict!

Since I have no idea WHY the jury arrived at this verdict (and they’re not telling us why), I can at least speculate on several reasons for it. Those reasons could include naivety on the part of the jury themselves.

But Farley? This man is a MORON! And THIS clown was PRESIDENT of the American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association??? Unbelievable!

Quite seriously, I have to suspect there’s more behind this than a mere “lack of knowledge” on Farley’s part.

I don’t think his theory of “Type T personalities” is so far out. Whether his theory is valid or not, it’s still a perfectly reasonable speculation for such a man to make. What it demonstrates however is that he seems to have given a great deal of thought and study to the many and varied human personality types. When it comes to cold-blooded murder, how could such a man, moving within a community of psychologists, possibly have missed the existence of psychopaths among the human population? He seems to have a colossal blind spot on that topic.

That’s why I think there’s more to this. I suspect this is not so much about a gap in Farley’s education as about his belief system. This could well be a man who believes what he wants to believe, who prefers to believe what makes him “feel comfortable” rather than facing the unpalatable truth about some humans.

This is perfectly plausible. It’s amazing what nonsense some people succeed in persuading themselves to believe, flying in the teeth of the facts. It’s all about their own wishful thinking, their own paranoid fears, or something of the kind. Just try convincing a creationist of the true age of the earth, for instance, despite the overwhelming evidence! Then there are all those nutty conspiracy theorists who believe we’ve “never been to the Moon,” that it was “all a fake”! And it doesn’t matter how intelligent or accomplished some people are, how thoroughly sane in just about every respect; they can still have “out of kilter” beliefs in one sphere of life or another.

One example I’ve run across in a different area—though it’s still about “human nature”—was Stephen Jay Gould. Though people have challenged many of Gould’s theories (as experts always do), I’ve enjoyed reading his articles, and nobody could deny that he was a highly intelligent man. Yet I was amazed to see the mental block he appeared to have around certain topics such as human intelligence. I found it all the more surprising that an evolutionary biologist, of all people, should be so resistant to accepting the influence of those very factors on human development.

In the same way, I find it amazing that a psychologist like Farley, of all people, should have a mental block around the topic of psychopathy. It doesn’t even have to be about a specific personality disorder labeled “psychopathy” whose existence most experts agree on in general terms. It’s far simpler and less technical than that. It’s about the capacity of some humans, male and female, for cold-blooded murder and other cruelties, perpetrated in some cases for almost casual reasons.

Does this guy know nothing about serial killers? About the sadists in Nazi concentration camps—including women like the infamous Irma Grese? Did he never hear of the Manson murders, still talked of more than forty years later? Or, since this is about a mother killing her own daughter, does he know nothing about Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Whatever the explanation for that phenomenon, has he never heard of women like Waneeta Hoyt? Does he know that MORE mothers than fathers kill their own children? Has he ever looked at a Web site like badbreeders.net to see how many parents of BOTH sexes treat their children with the most callous neglect and abominable cruelty?

Farley’s error is not about being “taken in” by a psychopath. When that happens, it’s understandable that people have a hard time believing how someone who seems so “nice” and “normal” to them can be a predator. But this is simply about recognizing that there ARE monsters out there. Anyone can learn that from our everyday news reports!

So it’s not even about being familiar with the symptoms of some mental condition. It’s simply about COMMON KNOWLEDGE of the appalling way some humans—of both sexes—behave!

My guess is that Farley, like a number of people, does not want to look that reality full in the face! Some people would rather cling to the belief that all humans are, quote, “basically good”—whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean! Well, humans run the gamut from good to bad. A few humans really are close to being saints—but not many! Still, plenty of humans ARE “good,” without needing to be perfect. Overall, I don’t think humans are “basically” anything except “human”! But some of them are DEVILS. And it’s that reality some people don’t want to face. Especially with humans in certain hallowed roles. I think it frightens them stiff to realize that monsters CAN jump out on us from anywhere, including the places we least expect.

The parental role is particularly holy. Back in 1944 a radiologist named John Patrick Caffey noticed an unusual number of infants sent to him with bone fractures. After studying many such cases he decided this must be due to a hitherto unrecognized disorder that left babies’ bones fragile and easily broken, even in ordinary play. Caffey published an article on it in 1945.

The condition he’d spotted in some babies did turn out to be real enough, and after a while it was dubbed “infantile cortical hyperostosis,” or “Caffey syndrome” after himself. However, it was not a common condition, and could only have accounted for a few such injuries. By the early 1950s, physicians such as Frederic N. Silverman were noting that many of these injured infants had entirely normal bone structure. Their fractures could not be explained by an unusual medical condition. Then in 1955 two more doctors, Woolley and Evans, published a limited study in the Journal of the American Medical Association citing evidence that in the children they examined, it was only the parents or other caregivers who could be to blame for their injuries. Still it wasn’t until 1962 that Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller and Silver really woke the world up with their groundbreaking paper titled The Battered Child Syndrome.

So it took the better part of two decades between the time somebody noticed how many tiny children were having bones broken, and the time professionals really started to make a big noise about it. In the meantime, it was easier for many people to believe these fractures were due to an “unusual bone disorder” than to face the more obvious fact that parents and other so-called “care”-givers were brutalizing these babies.

Incidentally, I’m sure there was nothing the slightest bit “new” about child abuse. This cruelty did not represent any kind of “epidemic.” We only have to look at history to realize the shockingly callous way many children have been treated in past centuries—during the Industrial Revolution, for instance—and the fact that cruelty has always been endemic in human cultures. That applies most of all to humans struggling to survive in harsh conditions, which was universally true in the past. I dare say the only reason doctors like John Caffey were noticing more fractures in the 1940s was that more people could afford to take children to a hospital at all—the war and new policies had broken the stranglehold of the Depression on the economy—and that X-rays were becoming more widely used.

Thanks to the genius of our technology, it’s only because we’ve created more secure conditions for ourselves in the developed world that over the past few centuries we’ve slowly become a “kinder and gentler” society than was ever true in the ages before. One irony of this “progress” is that too many people have taken human “kindness and gentleness” for granted, as though it were a fundamental trait of every human. I don’t imagine anyone in the seventeenth century or earlier, with its tortures, public burnings at the stake, and crime and street violence so widespread that personal weapons were an everyday necessity, would have any trouble crediting the notion that a woman like Casey Anthony could coldly consign her own little daughter to a dumping ground like so much household trash. I think it’s mostly in the twentieth century and later that some people have developed this Pollyanna view of human nature, shutting their eyes to how awful some humans can be.

The noted British pathologist Professor Keith Simpson, who had to deal with cases of lethal child abuse in the mid-twentieth century, remarked that “nobody wanted to believe” parents or guardians would do such terrible things to their own children. It’s a reality many people did not want to face. I suspect it’s a reality Frank Farley still doesn’t want to face.

In the Anthony case there’s yet another obvious factor: that the killer was female, a “mother.” If parents are “holy” (a belief debunked by Alice Miller among others), “mothers” are the “holy of holies.” It seems very difficult to wean some people away from the irrational belief that just because somebody is lacking a Y chromosome, they must be somehow incapable of ever doing serious harm to anybody, much less their own children. Real-life experience proves the opposite.

I’ve never completely understood what was behind this irrational belief about the supposed “goodness” of all women (or all mothers). On the one hand it may again be a matter of believing what makes people “feel comfortable.” And women—“mothers” most of all—are “supposed” to be “kind,” “gentle,” “nurturing” and all the rest of it. That some women, mothers even, are not that way at all seems to be a reality too disturbing for some people to face. I suspect it frightens them. It’s all the more disturbing to reflect that due to these very beliefs about women’s supposedly “nurturing” (or anyway “innocuous”) nature, women are more likely than men to be trusted in certain roles—especially as caretakers of children. The reality that a woman could betray that trust in the most ghastly fashion may be too frightening for someone like Frank Farley to deal with. So he invents myths to thrust this unpleasant reality away from his consciousness.

At the same time, I think it’s clear that humans overall have built-in tendencies to protect females more than to protect males. (With exceptions, naturally.) This has made evolutionary sense in the past. But it becomes problematic when females like Casey Anthony are dangerous and need to be dealt with firmly. I cannot ignore the human propensity for doing things in obedience to mere emotional (or “instinctive”) urges, then “rationalizing” this behavior by inventing some reason to “justify” the behavior. That could be exactly what Farley is doing here. He’s indulging his “chivalrous” instinct to “protect the female”—in this case to protect the very “image” of the female as a “nurturing mother”—by fabricating nonsense about how no “sane” mother could possibly do what Casey Anthony was accused of doing.

It’s bad enough when a man with the reputation of an “expert,” purely in the role of commentator, spouts such rubbish in public,. What’s more worrying is that the jury might also have been influenced by irrationality of this kind, and let a killer walk free.

skylar

Louise,
my brother is a true spath and he was raised as I was, Catholic. He turned to drugs and alcohol at age 13, then continued that course for a few years. He then started joining different religious groups and searching for something. He read books by Carlos Casteneda, joined the Hare Krishnas, tried to join Scientology (loves Ron Hubbard but scientology rejected him. LOL!) and studied lots of eastern philosophy. He can talk the talk convincingly when he wants to. But if you mention the word “God”, he becomes disgusted and says you are deluded. He is a smart man, intellectually, but I think that he rejects Christianity because of it’s emphasis on humility and self-sacrifice. Narcissists see those qualities as weakness or at least they say they do.

Redwald,
you are being too generous with Farley. There is no reason not to acknowledge psychopathy in a person you aren’t close to. My own denial was based on love for the spaths in my life. Farley is not close to Casey, so that isn’t the reason and I don’t think self-delusion applies here.

There are many spaths who work in the field of psychology and they love to throw a wrench in the works by confusing and clouding the issues when it comes to spaths. We must not be afraid to acknowledge how pervasive this is. If we are, then we might as well go back to our own spaths because we are still allowing ourselves to be led like sheep.

Louise

Oxy:

OMG…that juror is deadpanned. What is wrong with her? Did you see her reactions, her mannerisms? Blah!!!!

KatyDid

RedWald,
I agree you are being very generous with Farley. I think what it comes down to is he can not imagine spath being “that bad”. My husband couldn’t either. He could see insights into all other personality types, and he knew some things were missing in himself, but he didn’t think it was “that bad”. he trivialized the impact of such a personality. This from a man who slaughtered animals to teach them not to make him angry… among other transgressions.

Farley is unable to condemn that which he can identify within himself.

ps Porn is on ABC tonight, 9p central. I will NOT watch. I will NOT be a voyeur.

Louise

skylar:

My X spath was also raised Catholic.

Louise

skylar:

But I believe that being raised Catholic did something to him. What, I do not know. But he is not a believer in God.

KatyDid

I do get how some of these spaths feel “taken over by another” in their most heinous acts of psychopathy. One of the characteristics is seeing themselves in third person. My husband would talk in the third person about himself, esp when claiming deniability.

skylar

Louise,
perhaps it made him aware of hypocrisy? 🙂

During the time I was removing the mask on my spath, there was a case of some person who was convicted of sexual molestation of a minor. I can’t remember any details but they got 4 years. I asked spath if he had heard of it. No response. I asked his opinion. No response. I pressed the issue and he said, “yeah, 4 years is not enough.” He wasn’t in the mood but he was forced to keep his mask on.

sicko.

Twice Betrayed

Sky: excellent post on Farley! I agree. Little story: Satan and a demon were talking to each other. Demon said: “Let’s really trash God and make these humans see all this evil and not believe in God.” “No, said Satan: “That won’t work, let’s be covert, cool and make them believe we don’t exist, that will work better.”

Louise

skylar:

Well, I did not want to say it, so I am glad you did! 🙂

Sicko is right. Geez!!!!!

Ox Drover

Redwald,

Great post (as always!) and I totally agree with you on this…..

I watched part of the TV show but had to get up and leave during the last of the interview with that blond nursing student’s interview. The woman had absolutely NO sense about anything or what it took to “prove” murder—because she didn’t know the EXACT cause of the baby’s death, then nothing else mattered. MY goodness, what an idiot!

I have little doubt that Casey is a psychopath, but her parents are amazingly dysfunctional and I have a feeling that “that apple” (Casey) did not fall far from the parental tree. Whether or not her father molested her (and actually, I’m not going to say that I believe it or don’t believe it, because I don’t know) that is not what made her kill her child, or “grieve” (as her attorney says) by going out dancing and having a good time like nothing had happened. LOL

I am so sorry that poor child had to live for her entire life with such people, and to be born to such a mother, but she is out of harm’s way now….and if nothing else, her mother and her grandparents will be social outcasts forever, there is not a dirty, nasty secret that they have that has not been exposed to the universe, so if nothing else, their lives are ruined….so they all do indeed get some “justice” for that innocent child’s death.

Twice Betrayed

Ox: I fear they won’t suffer all that much isolation. These P’s are very skilled at reinventing themselves. Casey, I really feel will totally reinvent herself. I foresee them all selling their stories to as much media as possible, making money and going where things are quiet and people may not know that much about them. Casey may marry; new last name ….too many ways of profiting from this and reinventing themselves.

Twice Betrayed

Who knows: she may petition the courts for a name change saying the name is a stigma that she cannot see any peace, work….I could see the courts granting that, after this verdict.

Louise

But can’t the judge prohibit any of them making a profit from this? I thought I heard of this before.

Twice Betrayed

Nope, she and everyone else can profit, since she was acquitted! Now, what say we about the jury?

Louise

Twice Betrayed:

Oh, I see. DUH! I guess that “kind of” makes sense since she was acquitted.

I really don’t know what to say about the jury other than I am greatly disappointed. They did what they thought they had to do because they felt like it wasn’t proven. But if I was on that jury…it would have been hung because I would have not caved.

Twice Betrayed

Louise: I do hope you are correct on that jury……..I would not like to think otherwise….

Twice Betrayed

But, since one juror bright and early this AM was ready to answer any questions for a PRICE….and he was offered starting at five figures, it certainly makes one wonder. Seems/looks like EVERYONE right down to the meter reader that found Caylee’s body is looking to profit from this blood money.

Louise

Twice Betrayed:

I haven’t heard about that juror…really?? I am just so upset about ALL of this. What a circus! It has the OJ case beat by a mile. None of it makes sense and the lies have been unreal.

Twice Betrayed

It’s juror number six. I tried to copy and paste a copy of the actual letter, but it wouldn’t let me. It’s juror number 6 and the firm representing him is Rick French. Here’s a copy of the headline. Casey Anthony Juror: Ask Me Anything … For a Price
7/6/2011 10:06 AM PDT by TMZ Staff
One of the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial has decided to go public with his side of the story — but TMZ has learned, he’s not talkin’ … unless the price is right … and 5-figure offers are already pouring in.

Louise

Twice Betrayed:

That is so not right of that juror. That tells me something about him!

Twice Betrayed

Louise: Kinda reminds us of The Runaway Jury by John Grisham.

Louise

Twice Betrayed:

I didn’t read that one…

Twice Betrayed

The guy that taints the jury does it for a noble cause. But the guy that is trying to actually taint the jury first is a corrupt attorney out for big bucks. Excellent book and good film with Gene Hackman as the corrupt attorney and John Cusack plays the juror.

Louise

Twice Betrayed:

Sounds like a good read!

Constantine

Twice Betrayed,

So Juror number 6 is already looking for his sweet six figure deal? Wow. Again, I’m not the slightest bit surprised; but even his shallow and vulgar language is pretty much that of a Parisian street whore: “Ask me anything – for a price.” Did he really say that? And this soon after the verdict?!

“Dr. Farley” is just one further example of why we need to empower ourselves with knowledge, and to look critically at what ANYONE in a position of so-called “authority” is telling us. Certainly – deference where deference is appropriate: but I still maintain that the average poster here has a better head on their shoulders than – well, than the President of the American Psychological Association!

skylar

Constantine,
agreed!
It is becoming ever more evident that the spaths have infiltrated psychological associations as much as they have infiltrated religious organizations like, for example, the catholic church. They are drawn to positions of authority and unfortunately, many are extremely intelligent. That’s why we must be vigilent. We need to keep “psychological hygiene” as Andrzej M. Lobaczewski said. It’s so difficult. The red flags are CORRECT. When we dismiss them, we are drawn down a slippery slope. Keeping our wits about us no matter how much we want to believe that the spath we care about must be good, is essential.

Constantine

Sky,

Yes, I think many of our “high functioners” tend to gravitate towards things like the priesthood and the medical field. But they are much more insidious and camouflaged than the “sociobuffoons” who fill the bulk of our prisons and crackhouses. I wish that the next chapter in the study of Psychopathy would focus increasingly on these types.

You raise another good point that I’ve been thinking about lately. That is, how each time we “invest” ourselves in something like a love relationship (or even an intellectual construct, for that matter), it often takes a significant act of will to readjust our thinking/feeling when a new reality (or at least a subtle shift in the “old” reality) demands that we do so.

For example, we think that so and so is guilty and it turns out that they are not. (Or vice versa) Or we love a person and think that they are the very paragon of goodness and purity – and yet, almost imperceptibly, they start to act in a way that is inconsistent with that belief. Well, there’s the rub, you see: because we’ve already tied ourselves emotionally and/or intellectually to a certain view of things. So while I think it’s crucial that we do everything possible to “get things right” right from the beginning; yet even more important, I think, is how we react when our perspective proves (or is ever so gradually proving) to be the wrong one.

If you want to put a fancy term on this approach, you might call it “existential agility.” Most of us here know what this means, because we were in large part guilty of its opposite: we saw the “red flags” and the odd behaviors, but we kept clinging to a false outlook because it was too difficult (i.e., it required too much of an of exertion of will) to regain our footing and embrace the right one.

However, that’s what I’ve been working on lately. I still “invest” myself in things, but I always keep a small part of myself back; and if events dictate that I have to pull out or change my view of something entirely, then I already have at least one foot on safe and “healthy” ground.

Casey Anthony is 100% guilty, but let’s say (just by way of example) that she turns out to be definitively and irrefutably “not-guilty”. Well, that means we’ve taken an intellectual tumble, those of us who are “invested” in her guilt; but so what? We need to get right back up and adjust our thinking to the new reality. If a lover who has been an impeccable companion for years on end suddenly starts lying or acting in an untoward manner, then we are left with a similar choice: keep our investment (emotional, intellectual, or both) in a failed construct, or stand back up, dust ourselves off and change our thinking as soon as possible. This, in short is what I mean by “existential agility”.

You seem like a nice lady Sky, so when I write to you (or whomever else on this site) I give a small part of my intellectual and emotional energy. But what if “Skylar” turned out not to be Skylar at all, but a smart-ass 23 year old boy living in Canada in his mother’s attic? Well, that would be something of a letdown indeed! But again, it would be incumbent upon me in that situation to adjust my thinking to the new state of affairs; and to cease thinking of and relating to “Skylar” as a spunky middle-aged woman living out West somewhere! (And yes, I have no doubt at all that you are who you claim to be but, as I said – just by way of example!)

Still, amusing though that may sound, how many of us were more or less guilty of clinging to an infinitely greater imposture than a “pseudo-Skylar” (or “pseudo-Oxy” or “pseudo” whomever) could ever be! In fact, I suppose that’s what accounts for the fact that we are writing about this stuff YEARS after the fact (and in the middle of the night to boot!): because in a sense we are still trying to regain our footing that we lost due to our former “existential rigidity.”

Oh my, but how loose my tongue is tonight! Ah well, just wanted to share some random thoughts. On that note, have a great day!

Send this to a friend