strange answers to the psycopath test.

[nugnug]

you can make anyone out to be a pyscopath if you want to.

like superficail charm who decides weather its superficail or not.

how do you know.

[David1819]

Maybe Sandra can give her opinion on what you've posted David.

"Professor Vincent Egan, a chartered forensic and clinical psychologist, of Glasgow Caledonian University, who has followed the Jones murder, says it is possible to point to several factors that could have led to Mitchell becoming a killer."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.WHY___Silent_and_defiant_to_the_end__Luke_Mitchell_denied_the_family_of_Jodi_Jones_the_one_answer_they_needed/

"Murders of this kind are unusual but we see similarities in the background of Mitchell and in the backgrounds of other delinquent kids going off the rails. With drugs, there's no casual experimentation, he's using drugs in really a chronic way; he's carrying weapons, and that's not unusual in people who murder.

"Of course, most people with that profile don't commit murder, but there is no doubt that Mitchell was a troubled kid. There was a ritualistic aspect to this killing."

Mitchell, born on July 24, 1988, was the younger of two sons. His brother Shane - who was to be a significant figure in the case - had been born eight years earlier in 1980, the year his parents were married at Corstorphine Old Church in Edinburgh. In the semi-detached home in Newbattle, Dalkeith, life seemed relatively normal: his father Philip was an electrician and his mother Corinne ran a caravan park. Teachers in the local primary school knew Luke as a bright and attentive pupil.

It was in his later years, as an adolescent, that his demeanour and his interests changed. At the Catholic St David's High School in Dalkeith, his teachers became so concerned about his behaviour that they say they advised psychiatric help. According to evidence given at the trial, the bright and popular pupil had become something of a loner who disrupted class and argued openly with his teachers. In an essay, titled Pain And Suffering, he wrote: "If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.

"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.

People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."

After this, his English teacher Geraldine Mackie referred him to the school guidance teacher.

Ian Stephen, another forensic psychologist, who was a consultant to the TV programme Cracker, says: "Children who kill like this are few and far between but they tend to be reasonably intelligent children. Mitchell, by all accounts, was considered an intelligent boy. People like that are usually loners who are isolated or different from their peer groups. Often there are unusual circumstances in their family life. There is very clear evidence for all of this in this case."

He adds that in other rare instances where children have killed other youngsters - Mary Bell, and Jamie Bulger's murderers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - they have been considered to have been bright.

In the case of Bell, who was found guilty in 1968 of killing two young boys in Newcastle, she went out to help in the search for her victims after they had been reported missing.

It was this same act that led to Mitchell's downfall. His crucial mistake was to join the search for Jodi and then to "find" her at a place that nobody else had thought to look.

Stephen says: "When Mary Bell killed, she helped to look for the babies. To some extent it's about making yourself visible. There is an element of maintaining contact with the crime.

It's like making a hoax call to the fire brigade and staying to watch the fire engines turn up.

"In the Mitchell case, the murder may not have been a game but it may be that this has been done to act out his fantasies. Kids, and adolescents especially, have fantasies of killing. Most don't act on them but you find very often that serial killers will have had fantasies of killing which started in childhood."

With unbelievable speed of thought and coolness, 14-year-old Mitchell set about putting his cover-up plan in place almost immediately after he murdered Jodi. At 5.40pm he calmly phoned Jodi's house and spoke to Mrs Jones's partner, Allen Ovens. He asked for Jodi and was told that she had already left to meet him. Nobody in the house realised that it was, by then, some 50 minutes since Jodi had left, and no alarm bells sounded. Mitchell's alibi was that he has hung around, in and about his home, waiting for Jodi and eventually went off with some friends when she did not turn up. The group went to nearby woods to smoke cannabis. At no point was there a hint that Mitchell was agitated or distressed.

At 10.40, some 40 minutes after Jodi should have been home, the alarm bells began to ring.

Her mother sent a text message, intended for Jodi, to Luke's mobile phone. Using her pet name for her daughter of "Toad", the text said:

"Two weeks grounding Toad, say bye to Luke."

Again, with a composure that belied his age, Mitchell phoned back to say he had not seen Jodi all night. Panic set in, and Mrs Jones began phoning friends and relatives, and reported Jodi missing to police. During the calls, Mitchell agreed to search the path from the Newbattle end, and meet up with Jodi's grandmother, Alice Walker, her sister Janine and Janine's fiance Steven Kelly. What happened next became the crucial aspect of the trial.

Using torches in the dark, Mitchell began to search for the missing girl with his German shepherd dog Mia. In his statement to police, he said: "We walked past the V-shaped break in the wall and a few yards past that, not even 20 yards past that, Mia stopped and put her nose in the air and put her paws up on the wall as if trying to sniff over." He then went across the wall alone and continued searching. The statement continued: "I saw this white thing stuck out in the light. I could see it was legs, like a tailor's dummy. After I saw legs I just took another step then I recognised it was a body lying there. I could see it was female. There was blood on the neck. She was naked."

But three witnesses at the trial said there was no way Mitchell that night had gone anything like the distance beyond the V and then come back. He had headed straight to the V, gone over and immediately turned to his left rather than to the right or walked straight ahead. It was the fact that Mitchell appeared to know where to find the body and to see it from such a long way in the dark that led the jury to believe that only if he had known she was there in the first place would he have found her body.

Even as the verdict was announced, Mitchell never abandoned his cool demeanour. Despite being the subject of intense police and media scrutiny for more than 18 months, and especially in the first months after the murder, he did not crack.

As Luke was merely 14 years old, speculation is forming around Corinne Mitchell that she may have played more of a part in the murder than just the role of a mother. Police believe the 45-year-old's relationship with her son changed from parent to that of accomplice. Mrs Mitchell had claimed Luke had been cooking dinner at the time of the murder, even though her older son Shane said he thought the house was empty.

Some have said that the relationship between Luke and Corinne Mitchell went beyond the "normal" mother-son bond. The relationship was said to be extraordinarily physically close.

When police arrived to arrest the teenager they found him sharing a bedroom with his mother.

Continued here http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.WHY___Silent_and_defiant_to_the_end__Luke_Mitchell_denied_the_family_of_Jodi_Jones_the_one_answer_they_needed/

I believe Luke is guilty so sounds about right to me.

[David1819]

you can make anyone out to be a pyscopath if you want to.

like superficail charm who decides weather its superficail or not.

how do you know.

Exactly. If someone is an alleged psychopath then when ever they behave non psychopathic then people say its an act and manipulation further reinforcing the perception of being a psychopath. like Sandra mentioned earlier

[guest2181]

you can make anyone out to be a pyscopath if you want to.

like superficail charm who decides weather its superficail or not.

how do you know.

What difference does it really make? He's not in prison because he is a psychopath, he is in prison because he murdered five people.

Whatever label is placed on him, is irrelevant.

The campaign team (and David) seem to be desperate to claim that he is not a psychopath, but they are rather wasting their time.

[Stephanie]

What difference does it really make? He's not in prison because he is a psychopath, he is in prison because he murdered five people.

Whatever label is placed on him, is irrelevant.

The campaign team (and David) seem to be desperate to claim that he is not a psychopath, but they are rather wasting their time.

Agreed Hartley and has already been stated numerous times before, the DSM uses the term anti-social personality disorder also known as dissocial personality disorder. Which is characterised by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. An impoverished moral sense or conscience is often apparent, as well as a history of crime, legal problems, and/or impulsive and aggressive behavior.

[sandra L]

What difference does it really make? He's not in prison because he is a psychopath, he is in prison because he murdered five people.

Whatever label is placed on him, is irrelevant.

The campaign team (and David) seem to be desperate to claim that he is not a psychopath, but they are rather wasting their time.

He may have been initially imprisoned for being found guilty of murdering 5 people, but, from what I've seen posted here, he remains in prison because (in part) those who would have the authority to release him on the basis that he no longer poses a threat to society rely on the results of these tests (or their own interpretation of them) to conclude that he does, in fact, still pose a threat, because of his perceived current psychological makeup. So the tests, and the labels they generate are, in fact, very relevant.

The whole process of "addressing offending behaviour" in order to be channelled towards "appropriate" courses is rooted in claimed psychological assessment of propensity to re-offend, and the same is true (perhaps even more true) for those maintaining innocence.

As I see it, it's not the labels themselves, but the use to which they can be put, that is extremely relevant, again on both sides of the argument

[Stephanie]

(Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all of the developments in the case over the years.)

He may have been initially imprisoned for being found guilty of murdering 5 people, but, from what I've seen posted here, he remains in prison because (in part) those who would have the authority to release him on the basis that he no longer poses a threat to society rely on the results of these tests (or their own interpretation of them) to conclude that he does, in fact, still pose a threat, because of his perceived current psychological makeup. So the tests, and the labels they generate are, in fact, very relevant.

How can you give your opinion above if you are not up to speed with the developments of the case? Makes no sense!

[guest7363]

What difference does it really make? He's not in prison because he is a psychopath, he is in prison because he murdered five people.

Whatever label is placed on him, is irrelevant.

The campaign team (and David) seem to be desperate to claim that he is not a psychopath, but they are rather wasting their time.

Good post Hartley, the point I was making, for ages now the campaign team and his supporters have always argued that he has passed umpteen psychopath tests and now we have them saying these tests cannot be trusted?  Like you said, you don't have to be a psychopath to be a killer.  I spoke with a psychiatrist and a Chaplin who both worked with Bamber in Full Sutton (both retired now) they would not tell me anything about him being a psychopath all they would say, Bamber was without a shadow of doubt, guilty as hell, a very evil person and not liked in prison.

[David1819]

What difference does it really make? He's not in prison because he is a psychopath, he is in prison because he murdered five people.

Whatever label is placed on him, is irrelevant.

The campaign team (and David) seem to be desperate to claim that he is not a psychopath, but they are rather wasting their time.

How am I desperate? lol  All I wrote was

Professor Vincent Egan concludes that Jeremy is not a psychopath

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/medicine/about/psychiatryandappliedpsychology/people/vincent.egan

If this guy is prepared to put his reputation on the line claiming Jeremy is not a psychopath, then that's something that needs to considered.

Jeremy not being a psychopath does not preclude guilt and Jeremy being a psychopath does not prove guilt either. Its a rather meaningless debate.

If Jeremy is guilty I believe he has psychogenic amnesia. His crime and behaviour as a whole throughout his life is not consistent with that of classic psychopaths such as Ted Bundy and John Cannan for example. .

I can't see any desperation in my writing 😕

[Stephanie]

Professor Vincent Egan concludes that Jeremy is not a psychopath

And it's duly noted Sandra, as usual, failed to give her opinion on Professor Egan.

[nugnug]

at the end of day bamber wasnt convicted a result of a pyscologicaly test so i qustion how much use it actully is for the campaghn i mean you cant use it as grounds for appeal.

[guest154]

He may have been initially imprisoned for being found guilty of murdering 5 people, but, from what I've seen posted here, he remains in prison because (in part) those who would have the authority to release him on the basis that he no longer poses a threat to society rely on the results of these tests (or their own interpretation of them) to conclude that he does, in fact, still pose a threat, because of his perceived current psychological makeup. So the tests, and the labels they generate are, in fact, very relevant.

The whole process of "addressing offending behaviour" in order to be channelled towards "appropriate" courses is rooted in claimed psychological assessment of propensity to re-offend, and the same is true (perhaps even more true) for those maintaining innocence.

As I see it, it's not the labels themselves, but the use to which they can be put, that is extremely relevant, again on both sides of the argument

I'd say he was still in prison because he has a whole life tariff without the possibility of parole.

[sandra L]

Quote from: sandra L on Today at 04:33 PM

(Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all of the developments in the case over the years.)

He may have been initially imprisoned for being found guilty of murdering 5 people, but, from what I've seen posted here, he remains in prison because (in part) those who would have the authority to release him on the basis that he no longer poses a threat to society rely on the results of these tests (or their own interpretation of them) to conclude that he does, in fact, still pose a threat, because of his perceived current psychological makeup. So the tests, and the labels they generate are, in fact, very relevant.

How can you give your opinion above if you are not up to speed with the developments of the case? Makes no sense!

It's quite simple - someone posted about what had been decided on the back of psychological testing, and I gave my opinion on decisions made on that basis - doesn't matter which case is being discussed, what matters is the framework within which decisions are being made. Makes perfect sense if people step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

And this?

And it's duly noted Sandra, as usual, failed to give her opinion on Professor Egan.

You first posted that I could "give my opinion" at 6.48pm - it's now 7.43, and every time I've tried to post there has been a queue of posts  inviting me to review mine.

Update - just tried to post this and was warned that a further two posts have been made - so I'm just going to post it anyway - I have other things to be doing tonight.

[sandra L]

Sorry, I can't work out your quotes thing - if any of the admins can separate these out (or tell me how to do so) I'd be very grateful

[Zoso]

Sorry, I can't work out your quotes thing - if any of the admins can separate these out (or tell me how to do so) I'd be very grateful