Author Topic: reasonable doubt  (Read 32352 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #255 on: December 14, 2015, 10:07:AM »
So psychopaths like food ? What was Sheila doing eating a late night bite after having had dinner with everyone ? Peckish,was she ?

Or was it the slap-up FULL breakfast that Jeremy ate ?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #256 on: December 14, 2015, 11:41:AM »

And all of these are two shot suicides, are they?

Having looked further into the subject of multiple gunshot suicide. Abu Nidal and Yuriy Kravchenko are confirmed to have committed suicide with two shots to either the neck or chin area, However I cannot find any photos of them. Nevertheless I have now come across something that is far more shattering for those in favour of Jeremy's prosecution version of events.

You would have to see it to believe it. Suicide using a low calibre rifle to the neck/chin but not two shots not three but four! Even more bizarre this was not with a semi automatic. Witnesses saw the individual  rechamber the rifle to fire subsequent rounds after the previous shots failed to complete the suicide


« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 11:44:AM by david1819 »

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #257 on: December 14, 2015, 11:53:AM »
Having looked further into the subject of multiple gunshot suicide. Abu Nidal and Yuriy Kravchenko are confirmed to have committed suicide with two shots to either the neck or chin area, However I cannot find any photos of them. Nevertheless I have now come across something that is far more shattering for those in favour of Jeremy's prosecution version of events.

You would have to see it to believe it. Suicide using a low calibre rifle to the neck/chin but not two shots not three but four! Even more bizarre this was not with a semi automatic. Witnesses saw the individual  rechamber the rifle to fire subsequent rounds after the previous shots failed to complete the suicide



D'you kow which order the shots were in, David?
I believe in Sheila's case it's about angles and whether the first 45 degree shot could be followed by a second reflex shot at such an angle?

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #258 on: December 14, 2015, 12:28:PM »
So psychopaths like food ? What was Sheila doing eating a late night bite after having had dinner with everyone ? Peckish,was she ?

Or was it the slap-up FULL breakfast that Jeremy ate ?

It wasn't so much what either of them ate that night; psychopaths make reference to their 'physical' needs more often than non psychopaths - along with other behaviours....

JB makes reference to food an awful lot.

They also talk about money a lot. Remind you of anyone?

"They used twice as many words relating to physical needs, such as food, sex or money, while non-psychopaths used more words about social needs, including family, religion and spirituality.


Study co-author Michael Woodworth, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, prefaced the title of the paper with "Hungry Like the Wolf" to reflect the fact that psychopaths are predators and that their stories often included details of what they had to eat on the day of their crime."

Worth a read imo:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/10/words-psychopaths-reveal-their-predatory-nature
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 12:52:PM by stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #259 on: December 14, 2015, 01:03:PM »
In the second paragraph the writer refers to " speaking about their crimes ",then in the same breath,detachment of their crimes.You can't have both,it's either or ?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #260 on: December 14, 2015, 01:16:PM »
It wasn't so much what either of them ate that night; psychopaths make reference to their 'physical' needs more often than non psychopaths - along with other behaviours....

JB makes reference to food an awful lot.



"They used twice as many words relating to physical needs, such as food, sex or money, while non-psychopaths used more words about social needs, including family, religion and spirituality.


Study co-author Michael Woodworth, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, prefaced the title of the paper with "Hungry Like the Wolf" to reflect the fact that psychopaths are predators and that their stories often included details of what they had to eat on the day of their crime."

Worth a read imo:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/10/words-psychopaths-reveal-their-predatory-nature

Experts in psychology have divided opinions on psychopathy. A Psychiatrist told me that psychopathy is on spectrum and there is no thin line between psychopaths and non psychopaths. We all have psychopathic traits to some extent. In my opinion true psychopaths are very rare the ones like Peter Manuel for example.

They also talk about money a lot. Remind you of anyone?

Allot of people my age (sadly)  :(

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #261 on: December 14, 2015, 01:18:PM »
In the second paragraph the writer refers to " speaking about their crimes ",then in the same breath,detachment of their crimes.You can't have both,it's either or ?


No, it isn't. It's perfectly possible for someone to commit the most horrendous crime -as did Jeremy- and detach themselves from it in a way which enables them to talk about it as if it had been a necessary exercise.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #262 on: December 14, 2015, 01:21:PM »
I would have said that it was those criminals who know their stories inside out without a pause,are the ones to be watched. Their criminal minds are programmed in not hesitating to think,but to rattle something off parrot-fashion in order to get it right and to remain transfixed in their clever,but sick minds.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #263 on: December 14, 2015, 01:22:PM »
Experts in psychology have divided opinions on psychopathy. A Psychiatrist told me that psychopathy is on spectrum and there is no thin line between psychopaths and non psychopaths. We all have psychopathic traits to some extent. In my opinion true psychopaths are very rare the ones like Peter Manuel for example.

Allot of people my age (sadly)  :(

That is very true, David. However, the more psychopathic TRAITS we clock up, the closer we become to being enough on the spectrum to be labelled as such.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #264 on: December 14, 2015, 01:25:PM »
I would have said that it was those criminals who know their stories inside out without a pause,are the ones to be watched. Their criminal minds are programmed in not hesitating to think,but to rattle something off parrot-fashion in order to get it right and to remain transfixed in their clever,but sick minds.

But then you don't seem to recognize what a psychopath is. If all criminals' minds were programmed as you say, there'd be none behind bars.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #265 on: December 14, 2015, 01:50:PM »
But then you don't seem to recognize what a psychopath is. If all criminals' minds were programmed as you say, there'd be none behind bars.






I'd recognise one if I spoke to one.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #266 on: December 14, 2015, 01:55:PM »
Face to face it's not difficult to judge anyone but telepathy isn't always my thing really.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #267 on: December 14, 2015, 01:59:PM »





I'd recognise one if I spoke to one.

I rather think, on the strength of one conversation, you wouldn't.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #268 on: December 14, 2015, 02:06:PM »
Face to face it's not difficult to judge anyone but telepathy isn't always my thing really.


You surprise me.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #269 on: December 14, 2015, 02:06:PM »
I rather think, on the strength of one conversation, you wouldn't.





Not only does it have to be a conversation,you have the overall persona,including body language and eye movements.