A&E Documentary on Roger Keith Coleman

[QueenVee]

I just finished watching an A&E documentary on psychopathic killer Roger Keith Coleman. An overview of this extraordinary case can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman

Talk about a study of a psychopath at work -- this guy was incredible. Despite being convicted of a brutal murder-rape on the basis of overwhelming evidence, and having previously been accused and convicted of sexual assaults, he managed to convince masses of gullible people that he was in fact an innocent man of admirable character -- to the point that he was featured on the cover of Time magazine as a poster boy for the cause of innocent people sitting on death row. The lengths he went to to not only escape the death penalty, but also be freed from prison as an innocent man, were incredible, including painstakingly writing a daily diary in which he repeatedly protested his innocence, over the course of more than 10 years -- knowing that it could eventually be used to convince people of his sincerity.

His many passionate supporters (including the inevitable "girlfriend" that he met while in prison) fought to get a DNA test done on the evidence two years before his death. The test concluded that Coleman was among 2% of the population who could have committed the crime. His supporters were undeterred. Coleman himself repeatedly begged for a polygraph test, obviously believing that he could beat it, and finally received one on the morning of his execution. He failed. His supporters remained undeterred, and they continued to fight to prove his innocence for a decade after he was executed (that's right, he managed to continue manipulating them from beyond the grave). These people fought to have a better DNA test done in 1992, convinced that it was exonerate him. It in fact concluded that there was only a 1-in-19-million chance that the blood and semen found at the crime scene could have belonged to someone other than Coleman.

Most of his supporters realized at that point that they had been duped by an extremely skilled and manipulative psychopath. But there are STILL two women who refuse to believe that such a loving, sincere, and gentle man could have committed the crime -- his girlfriend, and one of his appeal lawyers.

Only a hard-core psychopath could manage to brutally rape and murder someone, and then succeed in making HIMSELF the victim in so many people's eyes, for so many years....

[Laura]

Truly amazing what they can do, isn't it?  The issue we have to deal with is: how do we truly and definitively reveal the true nature of the psychopath to those people who simply refuse to face the truth?  Or better, what is WRONG with people that FACTS mean nothing to them, and only their emotional beliefs count?   Still better, can we discover what it is the psychopath does to induce this kind of emotional belief?  Can we isolate it and analyze it and maybe come up with an antidote???

Thanks for this story.  It is enlightening and shocking.

[QueenVee]

The issue we have to deal with is: how do we truly and definitively reveal the true nature of the psychopath to those people who simply refuse to face the truth?  Or better, what is WRONG with people that FACTS mean nothing to them, and only their emotional beliefs count?   Still better, can we discover what it is the psychopath does to induce this kind of emotional belief?  Can we isolate it and analyze it and maybe come up with an antidote???

Well, like the C's like to say: "Knowledge protects". But it is imperative that knowledge about psycholpaths operates in conjunction with SELF-KNOWLEDGE:

Psychopaths have an unerring ability to exploit people's emotional buttons and belief systems. Those who are ignorant of their true natures, of the emotions and beliefs that drive them, of their own personal deceptions, are ready and willing targets for the psychopath. He can play them like a violin. But those who have gained the ability to see THEMSELVES, clearly and unflinchingly, who are not only able to tolerate the painful "shocks" involved in self-discovery, but actually actively seek them out as opportunities for growth -- they are people who can begin to defend themselves against the psychopath. They have more of an ability to objectively observe not only the behaviour of the psychopath, but also their own behaviour[/b]; more of an ability to recognize and ADMIT at an earlier stage that they may have been duped, that they may have allowed someone to manipulate them by playing on their weaknesses.

Many people mistake their "gut feelings" about someone as "instinct", as something they can implicitly "trust", when in fact that "gut feeling" is merely their emotional buttons being pushed. And that's the clincher. To admit that someone could evoke a response in you that is utterly WRONG, is to recognize that YOU CANNOT TRUST YOURSELF[/u]. And the implications of that are deeply shocking. Most people simply cannot go there, and it is less painful for them to persist in believing a LIE, even in the face of the most overwhelming contradictory FACTS. (Bush Senior famously epitomized that stance when he proclaimed in 1988: "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are....")

I believe that's the only "antidote" that exists: SELF-KNOWLEDGE.

[Approaching Infinity]

Coleman came up in a book I am currently reading: Barbara Oakley's Evil Genes. Here's the context:

One such example [of the negative effects of "emote control" or emotional thinking] is the twenty-five-year crusade to prove that a Virginia man, Roger Coleman, was innocent of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law. Coleman was a likable, good-looking man who resolutely insisted on his innocence. Thus, despite a large body of evidence--that is, rational facts--that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Coleman was guilty, death penalty opponents rallied to his cause. Jim McCloskey was Coleman's principal advocate--he fought for years to save Coleman's life and even founded a group... to help get the falsely convicted out of jail. McCloskey says, "I promised Roger Coleman the night he was executed [that] I would do all within my power to prove that he was innocent. Those were my last words to a dying man." Eventually, the state was convinced to make use of new DNA technology to reexamine the case... When Coleman's DNA analysis came back, however, he was shown to have been guilty as charged....

But why was McCloskey so certain that Coleman was innocent? The ultimate source of McCloskey's certainty is revealed by his statements after Coleman's "Guilty" DNA results came back. McClosky "felt betrayed by the man whose last words included the statement 'An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight.' 'How can somebody, with such equanimity, such dignity, such quiet confidence, make those his final words even though he is guilty?' McCloskey said." McCloskey had made an "emote control" decision that Coleman could not have been guilty--this decision had been deeply confirmed by Coleman's body language. The intrusion of reality in the form of Coleman's betrayal must have been devastating. Machiavellians such as Coleman often take advantage of an emotionally based--perhaps even genetically predisposed--desire on the part of some honest individuals to believe that others are also honest. This can occur despite sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oakley has some great descriptions of the processes by which emote control overpowers reason. In one study she cites, experimenters presented "conflicting and sometimes damaging" information about political candidates of their persuasion, and of a neutral character: Tom Hanks. The test subjects always managed to come to (illogical) conclusions that made the OTHER party's candidates look bad. "once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards."

But "a completely different process occurred when a participant had no emotional investments at stake", as with Tom Hanks. They came to perfectly logical conclusions, and only the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was activated.

[QueenVee]

Machiavellians such as Coleman often take advantage of an emotionally based--perhaps even genetically predisposed--desire on the part of some honest individuals to believe that others are also honest. This can occur despite sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But that implies that such people believe that EVERYONE is honest, which is not the case. There is in fact a set of subconscious criteria  -- ones that are extremely biased and primarily superficial in nature -- that sets off their emotional desire (need?) to believe in another person's "honesty". And those subconscious criteria include anything from "good looking people are inherently more trustworthy than ugly people", to "articulate people do not lie". And how do we KNOW that psychopaths meet people's SUPERFICIAL criteria? Because psychopath's are SUPERFICIAL in nature, and cannot meet any OTHER criteria. But how many people are willing to recognize and admit that their evaluations of others are based primarily on SUPERFICIALITIES?

And that raises the crucial question: If our evaluations of others are based primarily on SUPERFICIALITIES, how SHOULD we evaluate them? How do we BY-PASS those superficial biases and beliefs and see the REAL PERSON before us? Answer: SELF-KNOWLEDGE. It is only through self-knowledge that we can truly "know" another.

McCloskey had made an "emote control" decision that Coleman could not have been guilty--this decision had been deeply confirmed by Coleman's body language. The intrusion of reality in the form of Coleman's betrayal must have been devastating.

The documentary I watched included extensive interviews with McCloskey. And unlike some involved with the case, he did not run away and hide, refuse interview, etc. after the truth about Coleman came out. He bravely stood up and said, "Yes, I was duped, yes, I was wrong", he endured the pain of self knowledge. And in doing that, he revealed himself to truly be the spiritual seeker he claimed to be at the beginning of his journey. He recognized that he had been taught an extremely valuable, albeit deeply painful, lesson in his spiritual journey. And for that I give him kudos.

[Laura]

To admit that someone could evoke a response in you that is utterly WRONG, is to recognize that YOU CANNOT TRUST YOURSELF. And the implications of that are deeply shocking. Most people simply cannot go there, and it is less painful for them to persist in believing a LIE, even in the face of the most overwhelming contradictory FACTS.

and

"once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards."

Indeed.  

And the sad thing is that by believing lies, by refusing conscious suffering - for so it often is to face Truth - people miss a great opportunity for spiritual growth.  As the Cs have said: "suffering unlocks DNA potentials."  

I guess it comes down to the fact that the eternal victims of psychopaths are simply addicts to their own brain pleasure chemicals.

[Kesdjan]

I saw this yesterday as well, but I thought he couldn't be a psychopath because he failed the polygraph test. Does anyone know any research on the effectiveness of lie-detectors on psychopaths?

[QueenVee]

I saw this yesterday as well, but I thought he couldn't be a psychopath because he failed the polygraph test. Does anyone know any research on the effectiveness of lie-detectors on psychopaths?

I've watched quite a few interviews with polygraph experts, and they say while it is not unusual for an innocent person to fail a polygraph due to stress factors, it is not so common that a guilty person is able to "pass" one -- even psychopaths.

But, regardless, it is certainly not a given that ALL psychopaths are able to cheat a polygraph test, and that if you fail one, you must not be a psychopath....

Here's an article written by a lawyer on the "risks" involved in having your client undergo a polygraph test, someone I imagine has some experience with both polygraphs and psychopaths. At one point in the article he states:

"Another notion that found its way to the bunk pile was the belief that a psychopath can fool the polygraph because he/she allegedly has no conscience. A classic study conducted during the mid 70’s pitted the lying abilities of diagnosed psychopaths versus the human white rats of research – college sophomores. The sophomores proved to be better liars than psychopaths but neither group was very successful in fooling the polygraph."

[Approaching Infinity]

I saw this yesterday as well, but I thought he couldn't be a psychopath because he failed the polygraph test. Does anyone know any research on the effectiveness of lie-detectors on psychopaths?

Christopher Patrick started his psychopathy research with such an experiment. His results showed that psychopaths failed as much as non-psychopaths. While I haven't read his study, from the summary he provided in the intro to Handbook of psychopathy, it looks like the fail because they show a physiological response to lying, probably because they are enjoying putting on over on the tester.

[QueenVee]

The research seems pretty conclusive. On the discussion board of a website called "The Polygraph Place", I found the following response to the question "Can psychopaths beat the polygraph?":

In a study by Dr. Gordon Barland & Dr. David Raskin conducted in 1974, and presented at the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Salt Lake City, UT, 77 criminal subjects were given polygraph examinations and were rated on both the PD and K scales of the MMPI. A comparison of the 15 highest and 15 lowest scores (top 2% of PD and bottom of 76% of PD scales for general population), there were no statistically significant differences in the scores of the two groups. Result: No significant difference in detectability of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.

This type of experiment was conducted in a laboratory study in 1979 by Kristen D. Balloun & David S. Holmes and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), pages 316-322 with 18 college students with high PD (psychopathic deviate scores) and 16 low scores. The test type was the Guilty Knowledge Test. There were no significant differences between the two groups in ability to detect deception.

David L. Hammond, in a doctorial dissertation in 1980 conducted a similar study using the Backster You-phase test on "normal", "alcoholic" and psychopathic examinees and the results showed the examiners were able to select the guilty psychopaths at a higher rate than the normal or alcoholic examinees.

In 1989, Christopher J. Patrick & William G. Iacono conducted an extensive study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 347-355 using 24 psychopathic and 24 non-psychopathic male prison inmates and found both subject types to be diagnosed as deceptive at the same rate.

This type of study has been done by Dr. David Raskin and Hare and published in Psychophysiology 15,126-136 with the same conclusion.

Bottom line there is no support for the conclusion that a psychopath has any special or enhanced ability to "beat" or "fool" the polygraph.

[aron01]

i come into this aware that this tread is old, by roughly 4 years.... but i ask you this. the man in question, roger coleman... you describe his as a psychopath. as a murderer. you said that he had previously been convicted of sexual assaults. how well did you personally know the man?

allow me to adress this one step at a time.....

his conviction for sexual assault. are you aware that female in question was the mayors daughter? were you also aware that roger was at the home of grundy high school principle, riding bikes with his daughter? both of whom testified on his behalf.... political power, be it in the halls of congress or the back rooms of buchannon county's courthouse, is indeed a powerful thing.

moving on to miss macoy. are you aware that roger and wanda dated before his first conviction? that they had discussed marriage? or even that that they were having an affair? i am not niave enough to believe prison doesnt change one, but from what i know and from who ive talked to, and im almost willing to bet my sources are better than most, rape and murder just wasnt rogers style.

now, what about miss macoys husband. mr macoy? are you aware he was involved deep with a drug ring out of pikeville, ky? also, were you aware that he was trying to get out? blood in, blood out is the creedo of many gangs, even today.

also, what about the girl in roanoke, who was orginally from the grundy area, that was raped and left with the warning "if you go to the cops, ill do the same to you as i did to the girl up on slate creek.... and you know who im talking about". just two days after telling the police her story, she was found dead. her throat slit in the same manner as wandas.

now let me give you a different version of how things might have happened..... roger gets to the mine that night to find that his shift is being sent home. he decides to go by his lovers house for a quick romp. they get done adnas soon as roger leaves, men from the drug ring mr macoy is trying to get away from decide this is the perfect chance to send him a message. they enter the home, brutally rape, sodomize and nearly behead miss macoy.

let me give to the facts to back up this little scenario....

1. rogers dna. theres no denying his dna was there. however, there was also another dna sample.
2. her defensive wounds. the coroner found scrapes, bruises and skin under her nails from fighting off her attacker. roger had not a sinlge mark on his body.
3. the murder weapon. roger was carrying a small folding knife in his pocket which was in no way capable of inflicting the damage done.
4. the fingerprint. id be willing to bet that if you dusted for prints at my sister in laws house, youd find my prints on the door frame too.
5. his alibi. he had several witnesses that placed him elsewhere at the time of the murder.

my only hope in all of this is that you look at all the facts, not just what you got to see on tv.... this went a lot deeper than most people realized...

[anart]

Hi aron01, how do you know Roger?

[aron01]

roger and my dad went to school together and were close friends. my dad grew up as well as worked in grundy and the surrounding areas in the 70's and early 80's and were very involved in the mining scene during that era. how did you know him?

[anart]

roger and my dad went to school together and were close friends. my dad grew up as well as worked in grundy and the surrounding areas in the 70's and early 80's and were very involved in the mining scene during that era. how did you know him?

I don't.  I asked the question because you obviously came to this forum with an agenda, which is something we actively discourage.  Have you read the forum guidelines completely (you agreed to them when you joined)? 

[aron01]

I didn't come into this forum with an agenda. I simply read what was posted and gave a valid opinion as to what very well could be a different scenario as to what could have happened. The original poster railed against a man I highly doubt they knew and I simply asked those reading to consider a different point of view. If it was your dads friend, wouldn't you want a chance to defend him? I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts, and I have a great respect for that. I only ask you to consider the evidence in a different light. The only thing even remotely close to an "agenda", as you put it, is letting one misinformed person rant and rave at will and then fuss when someone with obvious inside knowledge of the subject at hand comes along and presents a different point of view.

Is the original post wrong? I feel it is. Perhaps grossly inaccurate is a better word, but that's their view and opinion. Just as my post was.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely

               Jesse A. Corbett