Sociopath Community

Legga said: 

Turncoat said: 

Her eyes and vocal delivery give me bad vibes right away. 

You're way better at this than me then.

A lot of pathological liars give off amped nervous tells compared to trained ones, as if their talent for lying were picked up either defensively or reflexively. Otherwise even without suspecting her to be lying she just makes me uncomfortable over her energy levels. 

I've even seen some who I'd argue didn't even enjoy the lying itself, but they had the quirk of answering questions before they've had the time to think about it which in their hands got them in more trouble than otherwise. The ones who accept and embrace this path meanwhile... 

I'm taking a lot of notes while listening to these police interviews. Some of these are amazing. They actually get people to confess to crimes that get them life in prison. @Alice: Watch the one with Lee Rodarte. That one's amazing.

Turncoat said: 

A lot of pathological liars give off amped nervous tells compared to trained ones, as if their talent for lying were picked up either defensively or reflexively. Otherwise even without suspecting her to be lying she just makes me uncomfortable over her energy levels. 

I've even seen some who I'd argue didn't even enjoy the lying itself, but they had the quirk of answering questions before they've had the time to think about it which in their hands got them in more trouble than otherwise. The ones who accept and embrace this path meanwhile...

 I felt like it was possible that she just lied because, why not. Like she just does it compulsively.

I think they made the right decision there, though, in ruling not guilty. They had no evidence. I trust evidence, because emotions are just too difficult to read and hard to trust. I don't trust myself as a character judge. There wasn't a lick of hard evidence.

I think they made the right decision there, though, in ruling not guilty. They had no evidence. I trust evidence, because emotions are just too difficult to read. I don't trust myself as a character judge. There wasn't a lick of hard evidence.

This is why they try to find circumstantial evidence, and otherwise cause for suspicion could give them additional reasons to keep an eye. A truly squeaky clean criminal's been the dream since shit like Dexter. 

Criminal behavior has a tendency for themes, and while proof is damning tells are suggestive. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I've been loving this channel the past week. 

My favorites are what you shared and the legend of Jeff because of the humor. 

 

Stephen McDanial is interesting too, he goes completely monotone for his interview. 

This is so strange to me that this is blowing up. I was hooked on this channel like a month or two ago, next thing I know a streamer I follow was watching it the other day, and now you are as well. That makes me curious about how the YouTube algorithms work.

Preface aside, I've been hooked into a few channels like this. Soft White Underbelly and Invisible People are two other channels that have reeled me in.

Legga said: 

She lies so nonchalantly in all those interviews. It's really convincing, like she does it for a living.

Like, I would've just eaten up every word. Maybe I'm too gullible, I've had that feeling lately.

From what I remember of her interrogations, her affect and consistency in statements were huge red flags. She was basically fucked, but ended up with a very good lawyer who was able to effectively point out that the evidence against her was a constellation of things with no one damning thing.

Tryptamine said: 

From what I remember of her interrogations, her affect and consistency in statements were huge red flags. She was basically fucked, but ended up with a very good lawyer who was able to effectively point out that the evidence against her was a constellation of things with no one damning thing.

Oh yeah, that's why it's always better to trust evidence/actions more than what people claim. However, what I found fascinating is that the way she was communicating sounded very honest and authentic. I wouldn't have doubted her for a second. Nevertheless, I would've believed the evidence.

It's similar with Inquirer. He has no tells, so people believe him, despite the constant lies. The mistake people make, however, is believing him over the evidence.

Turncoat said:

Her eyes and vocal delivery give me bad vibes right away.

The lights are on, but no one's home.

Legga said: 

Tryptamine said: 

From what I remember of her interrogations, her affect and consistency in statements were huge red flags. She was basically fucked, but ended up with a very good lawyer who was able to effectively point out that the evidence against her was a constellation of things with no one damning thing.

Oh yeah, that's why it's always better to trust evidence/actions more than what people claim. What I found fascinating is that the way she was communicating sounded very honest and authentic. I wouldn't have doubted her for a second. But I would've believed the evidence.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I feel it was pretty damn obvious she killed her kid. On the other hand, legal process needs due diligence. On the flip side of that, she basically got a "not guilty" sentence because her lawyer effectively manipulated a Jury at the last moment. She might have been fucked if it was the Judge deciding. Casey doesn't have to worry about responsibilities anymore, so hopefully she's chill now.

Tryptamine said: 

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I feel it was pretty damn obvious she killed her kid.

I feel the same way. However, there isn't any hard evidence to show that she did it.

On the other hand, legal process needs due diligence. On the flip side of that, she basically got a "not guilty" sentence because her lawyer effectively manipulated a Jury at the last moment.

No, I don't think so. She got a `not guilty` because of how criminal justice works. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

`Not guilty` does not actually mean that she did not do it or even that she likely didn't do it, which is what people commonly believe. `Not guilty` is equivalent to stating that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the person is guilty. The default assumption is that the person is not guilty, until demonstrated otherwise -- with evidence, not speculation.

It's a bit similar to someone stating that there isn't good evidence to believe a God exists. Just because they state that there isn't good evidence for a God to exist doesn't mean that they believe no God exists.

So the prosecutor didn't meet their burden of proof.

Legga said:

No, I don't think so. She got a "not guilty" because of how the criminal process is planned. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

"Not guilty" does not actually mean that she did not do it, which is what people commonly believe. "Not guilty" is equivalent to stating that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the person is guilty. The default assumption is that the person is not guilty, until demonstrated otherwise -- with evidence, not speculation.

It's a bit similar to someone stating that there isn't good evidence to believe a God exists. Just because they state that there isn't good evidence for a God to exist doesn't mean that they believe no God exists.

So the prosecutor didn't meet their burden of proof.

I think I agree with this. It's pretty obvious to most people that if your child "goes missing," you probably won't be out partying the next night, taking selfies and shit. And you'd probably express concern to those around you. This is one of those cases where our prefrontal cortex kicks in and says, "this bitch is lying." But the law has to be fair, otherwise innocent people will get fucked. I guess situations like this are why there are vigilantes.