Having now watched the documentary, paying particular attention to the wild unfounded claims/credible diagnosis(delete as appropriate) of Kerry Daynes, I am staggered that anyone takes her seriously.
Her first pronouncement about 16 minutes in;
"It's likely that he felt incredibly rejected on many different fronts and this caused him to feel that he desperately wanted attention, he wanted to be loved but if he actually attempted to get this he would be rejected again.
This causes a terrible conflict for a child and one way of coping with it might be to simply detach. You detach from your emotions so you can't be hurt.
What could have happened is that the emotional switches in Jeremy's brain could have been jammed in the opposition."
So after hearing a few anecdotes from interested parties Kerry Daynes is able to paint a "likely" picture of Jeremy's thoughts. She is then able to speculate as to what Jeremy "might" do to cope with this "likely"
scenario.
Anyway having uncovered the "likely" thoughts of Jeremy and what he "might" do to cope, Kerry remarkably can then diagnose what "could" have happened in Jeremy's brain.
It's a load of old bollocks isn't it?
Her next remarkable insight/paid for opinion comes at about 21 minutes. The reconstruction shows Jeremy driving a tractor dressed as Adam Ant and with his nails painted. Barbara Wilson apparently knows exactly why Jeremy dressed like this and it was to annoy his parents. Mike Fielder, the Sun "journalist" then claims that Jeremy was, "a sexual predator. On his nights off from Julie he was rampant around the bars and the clubs of South East Essex."
After being informed by the narrator that this behaviour by Jeremy could have been youthful high spirits or perhaps an indication of something darker, Kerry Daynes is on hand to help us decide.
She states, "It's possible that these are the early signs that in actual fact he has got psychopathic traits, so breaking rules, constantly breaking rules in many different ways. Also being sexually promiscuous and really needing a high level of stimulation, they're very prone to boredom."
How can anyone consider such groundless speculation as evidence of psychopathy? These are not indicators of psychopathy just because some pseudo scientists claim such.
How can opinions couched with more coulds and maybes and based on anecdotal evidence from interested parties be the grounds for a respected scientific opinion? This is voodoo science.
At around 29 minutes in after RWB has related his tale of Jeremy "acting" at the funeral and smiling like a "wide mouthed frog", the incredible Kerry Daynes is able to turn this anecdotal opinion into a hard fact and confidently state, "I think that this is classic behaviour of a psychopath. I think that in essence Jeremy painted on his emotions, the emotions that he felt he should portray that day and then when he felt that nobody was watching him, or nobody that mattered was watching him, he simply took the mask off and put it to one side."
Again this is not a scientific opinion, it is just some bollocks spouted by someone for money and is utterly meaningless drivel.
Her final contribution at around 41 minutes, "He certainly ticks an awful lot of boxes for a psychopath. Here is someone who is grandiose, he's arrogant, he seems to have very little emotion and what he does is very shallow and rather fake. He manipulates other people and he's quite happy to use people to meet his own needs."
For a science it appears to rely on a lot of assumption and speculation, as well as using subjective opinions as the basis for diagnosis. It is clearly groundless bollocks.
