New video:

[SaraT]

The fact he's in prison having been convicted of 5 murders is a bit of a clue.

Not if he's innocent it's not.

Plus, She wasn't basing her findings on this, she was doing it by looking at film, photos and listening to the words of people who didn't like him.

[Jane]

  I have read the interviews etc. and it is clear that a diagnosis of psychopathy can't be diagnosed from these and any belief otherwise has no basis.
    It is not I who is claiming to be the oracle on human nature though is it? I'm not the one making wild and extravagant claims based on a few blogs, interviews and the subjective opinion of biased sources.

It may be clear in your opinion but I wonder in which other way might it be possible to diagnose a psychopath  -I believe it is now acceptable for doctors to give "over the phone" diagnoses-  other than after a crime has been committed. One can't do random checks because there is no law which outlaws personality disorders. Only when laws are broken can checks be made.

[Stephanie]

Not if he's innocent it's not.

Plus, She wasn't basing her findings on this, she was doing it by looking at film, photos and listening to the words of people who didn't like him.

I don't believe he is!

That's your opinion. You don't know what she based her findings on. The fact that Ofcom ignored JB's complaint, suggests they found she wasn't unprofessional.

Regardless of what JB and his campaign team says. They have only given a bias view on the official website, no more no less.

[Patti]

     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.

Brilliant post Gringo

All it is, is an assessment called profiling. 

[Stephanie]

Brilliant post Gringo

All it is, is an assessment called profiling. 

Really?

Think you need to read up about Psychopathy http://www.livescience.com/49613-psychopaths-brains-punishment.html

[lookout]

     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.

An excellent post as usual,Gringo,making it yet another money-making piece of spin.
Well done.
I think I'll take up diagnosing via posts.

[Caroline]

     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.

You haven't got a clue, you're just another obsessed Bamber supporter trying to discredit the strikingly obvious fact that Bamber is a psychopath. That won't change simply because you don't understand the concept. Actually gringo, your last sentence describes perfectly, you notion that Nevill Bamber called the police - meaning it is clearly groundless bollocks.

[Caroline]

An excellent post as usual,Gringo,making it yet another money-making piece of spin.
Well done.
I think I'll take up diagnosing via posts.

You'll have to learn what a psychopath is first! 

[Jan]

Why would it need to be?

So now you are saying you can diagnose remotely from hearsay and un proven anecdotes?

Or what are you saying?

[lookout]

You'll have to learn what a psychopath is first! 

As I've already said---------it takes one to know one.

[Stephanie]

As I've already said---------it takes one to know one.

Can you explain this please Lookout because I'm not understanding what your post is implying. Unless of course you are suggesting that we are psychopaths? If that is the case then I'd like a moderator to have a word please!

[lookout]

I'm fully aware of what a psychopath is,and Jeremy isn't one of them. He was a lad who liked to show off given his new found freedom from the apron strings of his mother. It's quite normal.

[Adam]

Everyone on this forum has given an opinion of whether Jeremy is a psychopath. So why shouldn't someone who is qualified in this area, give an opinion, when asked ?

She didn't say he was a psychopath, but that he ticked a lot of boxes. And suggested it may have started in early childhood.

[Stephanie]

So now you are saying you can diagnose remotely from hearsay and un proven anecdotes?

Or what are you saying?

No, that is what you are all saying in order to dilute Kerry Daynes professional opinion. She thinks he's a psychopath, we think he's a psychopath, lots of people think he's a psychopath. In fact there are very few people who don't think he is a psychopath.

[Stephanie]

I'm fully aware of what a psychopath is,and Jeremy isn't one of them. He was a lad who liked to show off given his new found freedom from the apron strings of his mother. It's quite normal.

Based on your previous posts on the subject and your apparent bias, Clearly you are not.