Saturday, January 17, 2009

Madoff and Scott Peterson : psychopaths at large

You remember Scott Peterson who killed his wife Laci and unborn child? Everybody said he was such a nice reliable young man. Some children have a knack for discovering how to please, and everybody likes them. Sometimes such children develop as unique Pleasers. That is what they live for: approval, until one day they have forged a personality that they present to the world and they have no idea who they really are.
It is like they have developed an outside envelope at such a price that there is nobody inside: no plan, no guidelines, no empathy, no principles, not much emotion, little feelings. Some rotten trees are like that: only the bark holds them up. They remain unnoticed for a long time amongst other trees.

There is lot of that in the Madoff couple: Mr Madoff did not even invest for his clients at all: his swindle was deliberate from the get go. It makes him a very different guy from somebody who started lying after his affairs went south. That is the difference between a psychopath and a dishonest man. Mrs Madoff was probably all about appearances too: she had a ghost writer for a cookbook published under her name because it was "fun". So the Madoffs were a couple united by their outside shell.

How do you discover that somebody is a psychopath? You cannot: all the external signs are fooling you. Unless of course, you have been victimized before: then you learn to pay attention to all the small signs that tell you if there is a person inside.

14 comments:

A Voice of Sanity said...

You remember Scott Peterson who killed his wife Laci and unborn child?

No, I only remember the Scott Peterson whose wife Laci was abducted by a crazy woman who cut the baby out of her and killed them both.

Claude Lambert said...

You surprise me: your website has a good description of the case. You were thinking of Mrs Gomez from Washington state, I think, who was killed and her child taken from the womb by a Mrs Synhavong. There has been another famous Peterson case: Michael Peterson apparently killed his wife; he had gay relationships and was condemned to life in 2003. Scott and Laci Peterson were from Modesto CA; he was condemned to death in 2005. Judging by his declarations to the press and to his girlfriend and from what his own family said, he was a typical psychopath. I have not followed the two other cases.

A Voice of Sanity said...

http://another9912.googlepages.com/sociopath

Many have claimed that Scott Peterson "must be a sociopath". No competent professional has made any such diagnosis, based on a personal examination of him. You can compare him against two presidents at Sociopath?

I note that although the state burned through $11 million of taxpayer's money, they failed to come up with even one piece of evidence against him.

He was convicted by the media, not by any facts. The police spent 20,000 hours - and found one hair and some cement mess, nothing else. No evidence of murder was ever found.
To save arguing the evidence here, go look at
Guilty?
to see what the prosecution had - which was nonsense.
Then look at
Innocent!
to see what the real circumstantial evidence in this case actually proved.
18 items of evidence for fetal abduction.
Zero for uxoricide.

Claude Lambert said...

I disagree. Killing a pregnant woman is more often done by a spouse than by somebody else. Why didn't Scott look for his wife? Why would he try to flee and color his hair? How come the body was found where he himself said he was the day of the crime? The lies he told to his mistress were unnecessary and offer all the characteristics of a pathology. Same thing with what he said on TV, specially about "closing the door of the child's room" and he could not hide a smirk. His first sentence when entering jail was very characteristic too of his lack of feelings.

A Voice of Sanity said...

This is ooga booga argument. It is the sort of clap trap that TV talking heads spew out of their empty heads. None of it is worth a moment's consideration. I covered everything of significance in the two links I pointed you to, and in 6 years not one person, and that includes the jury, can point to even one piece of evidence of guilt. Even the prosecutor was forced to lie repeatedly in his closing argument for lack of actual evidence, and the police were repeatedly caught destroying evidence, creating false evidence, and lying, even while under oath during the trial.

Claude Lambert said...

Ooga booga? You must be in love with Peterson!

A Voice of Sanity said...

Really? THAT'S the best you can come up with? An old (and very straight) guy who has never met anyone involved in the trial "must be in love with" Scott Peterson? How sad. Does it never occur to you that maybe, perhaps, some people actually believe in justice, not in revenge, and that injustice makes them as mad as hell? By the way, I've heard that sad accusation hurled over and over again and it really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I point out AGAIN that not one person on this planet can point to any evidence against Peterson. Not only that, every single piece of evidence is in his favor. Some pieces of evidence actually prove him innocent on their own.

Why do Americans hate each other so much? Why do they hate justice? Why are they so obsessed with revenge on anyone, anywhere, at anytime that they are perfectly satisfied to kill the innocent? Why?

How can you read the two pages I pointed you to and fail to understand them? They are clear, simple, and many eight year olds could comprehend them. Why is it that so many adults cannot?

Claude Lambert said...

The man had means, opportunity and motive. Most than anything, it his own behavior that condemned him. You are not very convincing because you dismiss anything that does not help your thesis, like his flight; it all becomes coincidence and bogus and unimportant, but you do not explain anything bad he did or said. I cannot help you with this, and I profoundly disagree with your thesis.

A Voice of Sanity said...

No, you are wrong. Scott had no means, no motive and no opportunity.
When no cause of death is known there is no means to point at. He had no opportunity because he was miles away when the crime occurred - but two dangerous criminals were right across the street, mere feet away, committing crimes which could bring them life in prison. He had no motive; even the jurors admit they cannot fathom any motive he could have had.

So you strike out on all three.

Claude Lambert said...

I am sorry if I misjudged the man, and I surely do not want to sadden you. Are we talking about the same person? Didn't he have a mistress? It is not a motive for everybody, but it is motive when you do not like who you pretend to be. Didn't he lie to his mistress too (with an insane unnecessary claim that he was in Paris, as I recall), didn't he take his boat right where the body was found? Didn't he have that little smirk when he said about the room of the child "that door is closed"?
I think that he was his worst enemy, something you should take into account when defending him. I will read the trial again and try to change my view if you promise me that you will be very careful with ANY liar.

Claude Lambert said...

By the way, all the people who look for "Peterson" on my site are googling for the other one, not Scott.

A Voice of Sanity said...

I am sorry if I misjudged the man, and I surely do not want to sadden you. Are we talking about the same person? Didn't he have a mistress?

No, he didn't, and Amber Frey bitterly resents being called that. He had 4 'dates' with her and they had sex on each of them. He was married; she claims ignorance of that fact. Not a 'mistress'.

Didn't he lie to his mistress too (with an insane unnecessary claim that he was in Paris, as I recall)

Can you point me to a single similar case ever where the man wasn't lying to someone? I have a multi page list of well known adulterers, politicians, religious leaders, military leaders and more all of whom lied but it would run several pages. As for the 'Paris' claims, at that time he was trying to dump Frey and this was part of that. After all, he was soon to be a new father and wouldn't have time for her.

didn't he take his boat right where the body was found?

You have that backwards. The bodies were dumped in the general area where the police had searched (with zero results). There are good reasons this was done but due to the long list of police failures we don't know why in this case.

Didn't he have that little smirk when he said about the room of the child "that door is closed"?

Point? We've just gotten rid of an awful president who couldn't do or say anything without being compared to a grinning chimp (something the chimps bitterly resent). This is not evidence.

Nothing you have posted here is evidence of homicide; at most it is evidence of bad taste and unlucky timing. Until someone can put Scott Peterson within 2 minutes and 20 feet of the (unknown) time and place of death and can show he performed an action causing death there is no case. A rigged trial with a senile judge, a hand picked jury, and a mountain of false evidence should convince no one capable of thought.

Christopher said...

"No, I only remember the Scott Peterson whose wife Laci was abducted by a crazy woman who cut the baby out of her and killed them both."

Where's the evidence of this imaginary woman?

A Voice of Sanity said...

Christopher said: "Where's the evidence of this imaginary woman?"

Imaginary? There are only two ways that a baby comes out of a pregnant woman, by birth, which Dr Brian Peterson ruled out or by cesarean section. Laci Peterson's uterus was cut open, the placenta was missing, the fetus was separate, it was tied up with twine, it was a full term baby and it was found separately placed on the shore where it was found while the mother's body was dumped in the sea at the same time.

Here are some other cases Fetal and other abductions. There were four cases last year and that's only the ones we know about - how many are never detected?