Sociopath Community

Yeah, exactly. If the burden of proof wasn't on the prosecutor, people could always go and sue others, and get them into trouble as long as there's convincing enough a narrative. That's one of the reasons. The WYSIATI principle seems to indicate that we have a tendency to jump to conclusions even if there's no good evidence.

People could take advantage of those psychological weaknesses to get innocent people into trouble if the system was different.

none of these people have anything on you backstabbing traitors you're all fake friends always lying pretending to be my friend km sick of it all of ot 

Tryptamine said: 

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.

Ahhh the Asmongold Effect. 

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.

I've been more of a fan of formats like Wizard of Odd TV from it feeling more 1-on-1 compared to the feel of Reelz, but they tend to not cover killers and junk. 

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.

The evidence if we haven't seen it ourselves within it's original event and context is second-hand at best, and is prone to having the meaning of said facts mutated to mean other things. 

A lawyer asking "How fast was that car driving" versus "How fast was that car speeding" has been shown to affect witness responses for their testimony, and both lawyers and psychiatrists have been guilty in the past of effectively temp-brainwashing people to parrot the ideas of said lawyer/psych's room to spin the narrative. 

If we're comparing and contrasting information it definitely has tiers above some other categories (like pure anecdotal evidence for example), but we can't just assume it's fact, simply closer to facts than what we might otherwise have access to. It makes sense to carry a subjective degree of skepticism when there could be more to the story, and tells such as microexpressions could easily in the future raise the room to search for further evidence (AI is already pretty good at this now). 

If we didn't apply subjective degrees of skepticism towards seemingly objective outcomes, there'd be no room to question if seemingly objective things actually are just that. 

Legga said: 

`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.

I always thought 'Guilty' was an odd word to pick, considering the ones most likely to be found 'Guilty' are the ones who'd possess the least sense of guilt over their actions. 

I'm somehow reminded of this movie from the 80s: 



(full movie's on youtube)

I hate it that we agree on so many things, Turncoat.

I agree that testimonial evidence is pretty weak. It can be biased, people can lie, they can remember events incorrectly, they can be influenced, etc. I'd rather trust hard evidence. Like, for example, there was that one murderer on that channel, and they found video tapes of that guy filming the victim in her own house while hiding in a closet. They found his dna on the victim's body, the murder weapon in his home, and plenty of other indisputable evidence. That's the type of evidence I'd trust. The issue, of course, is that it is not always available. But in those cases I'd just rule "not guilty."

When I was a kid, I wanted to become a lawyer because they make a shit-ton of money. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't.

I wonder how many people successfully avoid criminal justice.

people who get caught usually avoided justice for a long time leading up to their arrest

Well the reason jim can’t swim is blowing up right now in particular is they used to be a Patreon only channel mostly, and then soke content was on YouTube 

they recently changed tho so they put all their Patreon content up for free on YouTube which prompted a surge in the channels growth somehow 

I’ve been talking about this channel on here for probably a year, and I was really dissapointed when they started making majority of their videos only viewable by members who pay because I loved posting the videos and talking about them with other people and all my theories about the suspects and etc. that’s part of what made it fun so. Now that’s is viewable for everyone its started a share spree I’m sure 

it’s very fun to watch *with* someone and that’s part of the magic I think of what made the channel grow, a long with many other factors