I don't know what this says about me, but I saw nothing really unusual about her eyes, and her expression didn't unsettle me. I'm not in any way saying you are mistaken, only that I don't appear to be able to identify it in people if it's not in person (at least not consciously).
I watched that documentary awhile ago with my ISFP guy friend, along with a segment on feral children in Russia. Whenever I learn about these people I get inside their heads to figure out what it's like to be them. I enjoy it, seeing from different perspectives. While people with no conscience or empathy would certainly give me bad vibes in person (and I think I have a good sense for whether people are harmful or not, just based on how their energy feels), learning about these things doesn't usually scare me or make me emotionally react. When I get emotional, it's anger on the part of their victims.
It concerns me however, that I didn't really pick up on the rehearsed nature of the ending of the documentary. I thought she was telling the truth. She may have been, I don't know; but maybe it would be good to pay attention to these things. In any case, she just strikes me as a typical conservative whose ethics and values I would disagree with and find questionable. There are a lot of people with attachment issues, who lack empathy to a significant degree. I'm not going to say there is a correlation with politics, but I think there is a certain brand of conservative which values control, conformity, violence, punishment, etc. which would be a very good match for someone who is a sociopath trying to blend into society. If you lack your own set of ethics, you can always borrow them from a social group. This reminds me of Kohlberg's 6 stages of development; it was found that most people tested as stages 2 and 3 out of 6 (rather appalling). And it doesn't surprise me. Think about how many children are victims of domestic abuse and neglect; the statistics only show what has been reported.
The attachment therapy that this girl went through is very aggressive and puts the therapist in complete control of the child. I would not be extremely surprised if this has become a semi-acceptable way for her to continue the cycle of abuse that she was subjected to as a child, by physically dominating and emotionally breaking children who are brought to her mom's center for "treatment."
This would not surprise me at all. I think a lot of people in society are perpetuating cycles of abuse. But even if she isn't in an ideal place psychologically, I think it's the only thing that works for some people. Complete adherence to an external authority is the only way some people integrate into a social system, or really understand what being social means. If it's the only way she understands ethics, then I guess it's necessary and better than the alternative. Control is a lower stage than genuine caring for others; so that's why an environment of love didn't work initially. She couldn't understand it.
I would consider her a success if she really can blend in with society and mimic proper ethical treatment for people, even if it is not genuine. (After all, plenty of people do.) I think she does have some sense of empathy; her focus on babies shows that to me for one thing- she is able to make the connection between the time she herself suffered pain and other people in that vulnerable stage. Even if it is only a fascination, I think she has at least an unconscious desire to help and protect even if she doesn't really know how. That's what my sense of empathy says anyway.
And is it weird that I wasn't creeped out by the needle thing? I just thought, "well that makes sense."
Anyway, don't mind me and my unusual reactions to things. I'm not a sociopath or anything, just a little surprised.