Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other cases => Topic started by: nugnug on March 07, 2016, 03:26:PM
-
i allways thougt there was somthing wrong with this test.
https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c
-
Interesting video, nugnug. Too many of these so-called "psychological measures" are too subjective to be even remotely reliable. For example, "glib and superficial charm" - who decides what's glib and superficial, what's "real" and what's just used for a particular set of circumstances, like having to be nice to a work colleague you really don't like? Or, absence of guilt or feigned guilt - can't win on this one - if the person shows guilt, they're "feigning" and must be a psychopath, if they don't show guilt... they must be a psychopath!!!! One that cracks me up is the "emotional response" indicator - they don't react "normally" to distressing emotional circumstances, leading us to have to believe that there is, in fact, a "normal" response (or set of responses) that "most people" would display.
Most of the perceived behaviours (or lack thereof) are nothing more than someone's opinion, based on that someone's own life experience, values, expectations etc.
Another "psychological measure" that bothers me is "micro expression" for exactly the same reasons - who can really tell what a fleeting, micro-second expression actually conveys? Apparently, according to the pseudo-science, some very clever people can be taught to recognise and read these expressions, but it was still an ordinary human being who decided in the first place what they thought those expressions meant - I mean, how could they possibly prove it?
When these theories begin to filter down through popular media, they lose all semblance of "science" and become just another way to label people as a means of justifying our own prejudices.
-
Brilliant and to the point post,Sandra.
Pre-judging is a dangerous practice.
-
i love the fact he was described as anti socail for not wanting to mix with murders and rapists.
you basicaly make anybody sound like a pyscopath if you want.
-
i allways thougt there was somthing wrong with this test.
https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c
Interesting video Nugs, Tony reminds me of someone I know who is in prison, all of a sudden he has convinced (or is trying to convince) staff he has Bipolar stage1, having not shown any signs of this in his last 40 years. This he thinks will keep his job when he comes out and excuse him for his actions.
Most tests are flawed and and open to abuse whether it being a polygraph test or psychopath test, all we can go on is the experts that work in that field and how good an expert they really are. I thought it was a proven fact that Bamber has passed numerous tests for being a psychopath? Are you now saying these tests he has taken are unreliable and should be ignored?
-
Interesting video Nugs, Tony reminds me of someone I know who is in prison, all of a sudden he has convinced (or is trying to convince) staff he has Bipolar stage1, having not shown any signs of this in his last 40 years. This he thinks will keep his job when he comes out and excuse him for his actions.
Most tests are flawed and and open to abuse whether it being a polygraph test or psychopath test, all we can go on is the experts that work in that field and how good an expert they really are. I thought it was a proven fact that Bamber has passed numerous tests for being a psychopath? Are you now saying these tests he has taken are unreliable and should be ignored?
Sometimes things are not always reported accurately.
Back in 2008, Jeremy appealed against a refusal to have his prison status downgraded and a Judge ruled that: "The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.msg350318.html#msg350318 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.msg350318.html#msg350318)
So despite the claims that Jeremy has had all of these tests which 'allegedly' show that he isn't a psychopath, a review team and a judge has decided that either he is a psychopath, or he has other psychological issues/disorder(s) which they have used to justify his status as a category 'A' prisoner.
Clearly his attempts to throw off his psychopathic tendencies, shows that he is manipulative and reinforces his status as a psychopath. :))
-
Not necessarily Hartley.
-
I thought it was a proven fact that Bamber has passed numerous tests for being a psychopath? Are you now saying these tests he has taken are unreliable and should be ignored?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I didn't know JB had passed "numerous tests," and even now that you have made me aware of this, I still couldn't say they are unreliable and should be ignored because I know nothing of the tests themselves, how they were carried out, by whom, or what factors were considered... etc etc.
I agree that many tests are flawed and open to abuse - that was the point I as trying to make in my earlier post. We don't (and can't, in my opinion) have a concrete science to predict or conclude what's going on in someone else's mind, therefore, we have to be extremely careful how much reliance is placed on results of tests such as these on both sides of the argument.
-
So despite the claims that Jeremy has had all of these tests which 'allegedly' show that he isn't a psychopath, a review team and a judge has decided that either he is a psychopath, or he has other psychological issues/disorder(s) which they have used to justify his status as a category 'A' prisoner.
Clearly his attempts to throw off his psychopathic tendencies, shows that he is manipulative and reinforces his status as a psychopath
Did Jeremy have these tests, and did they conclude he is "not a psychopath?" (Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all of the developments in the case over the years.)
If those were the conclusions, then the decision makers (judge and review team) are also displaying psychopathic traits - superiority, incongruity, contradiction, contempt and manipulation :)
-
No, that's not what I'm saying. I didn't know JB had passed "numerous tests," and even now that you have made me aware of this, I still couldn't say they are unreliable and should be ignored because I know nothing of the tests themselves, how they were carried out, by whom, or what factors were considered... etc etc.
I agree that many tests are flawed and open to abuse - that was the point I as trying to make in my earlier post. We don't (and can't, in my opinion) have a concrete science to predict or conclude what's going on in someone else's mind, therefore, we have to be extremely careful how much reliance is placed on results of tests such as these on both sides of the argument.
That kinda sounds all very sensible, but the reality is (at least in the JB case), that there is no reliance or even consideration of any such tests, other than prison authorities monitoring prisoners health and well being as part of their duty of care.
-
Did Jeremy have these tests, and did they conclude he is "not a psychopath?" (Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all of the developments in the case over the years.)
If those were the conclusions, then the decision makers (judge and review team) are also displaying psychopathic traits - superiority, incongruity, contradiction, contempt and manipulation :)
Or, of course, on the other hand, these could be your own projections :)
We don't (and can't, in my opinion) have a concrete science to predict or conclude what's going on in someone else's mind, therefore, we have to be extremely careful how much reliance is placed on results of tests such as these on both sides of the argument.
When these theories begin to filter down through popular media, they lose all semblance of "science" and become just another way to label people as a means of justifying our own prejudices.
If those were the conclusions, then the decision makers (judge and review team) are also displaying psychopathic traits - superiority, incongruity, contradiction, contempt and manipulation :)
? ?
-
Did Jeremy have these tests, and did they conclude he is "not a psychopath?" (Sorry, I'm not up to speed on all of the developments in the case over the years.)
If those were the conclusions, then the decision makers (judge and review team) are also displaying psychopathic traits - superiority, incongruity, contradiction, contempt and manipulation :)
------------Bravo !
-
Sometimes things are not always reported accurately.
Back in 2008, Jeremy appealed against a refusal to have his prison status downgraded and a Judge ruled that: "The review team had not been perverse to accept psychological reports showing category A status was justified".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.msg350318.html#msg350318 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7435.msg350318.html#msg350318)
So despite the claims that Jeremy has had all of these tests which 'allegedly' show that he isn't a psychopath, a review team and a judge has decided that either he is a psychopath, or he has other psychological issues/disorder(s) which they have used to justify his status as a category 'A' prisoner.
Clearly his attempts to throw off his psychopathic tendencies, shows that he is manipulative and reinforces his status as a psychopath. :))
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 dident actully have jeremy in mind specficaly ehen when i posted this
-
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.
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
(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!
-
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.
-
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 😕
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
;)
-
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.
Jeremy Bamber remains in prison not because he's been classified as a psychopath but because he has never taken responsibility for his crimes, rather he carries on the façade of a MOJ . His insistence of innocence also means that has not taken any of the rehabilitation courses but as he was also given a whole life tariff (because of the nature of his crimes) these will be of little value. Many of us here believe that he is a psychopath NOT because of any test or assessment but because of the nature of his crimes and the fact that he has not had the courage to admit responsibility. Just because someone claims they are innocent - doesn't mean they are and in the case, the facts speak for themselves - some people just refuse to face them.
-
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.
Yet another excuse - you are certainly full of them ::) though this is by far the funniest ;D ;D
It's now 'approximately' 20.31 hours. That is only an approximate time as I haven't checked with the speaking clock ;D but I'll post anyway.
I'm off to devourer a cadburys cream egg ;D
-
Jeremy Bamber remains in prison not because he's been classified as a psychopath but because he has never taken responsibility for his crimes, rather he carries on the façade of a MOJ . His insistence of innocence also means that has not taken any of the rehabilitation courses but as he was also given a whole life tariff (because of the nature of his crimes) these will be of little value. Many of us here believe that he is a psychopath NOT because of any test or assessment but because of the nature of his crimes and the fact that he has not had the courage to admit responsibility. Just because someone claims they are innocent - doesn't mean they are and in the case, the facts speak for themselves - some people just refuse to face them.
Totally agree Caroline!
Denial, by the way, for anyone who may be interested, is a coping mechanism that gives one time to adjust to distressing situations.
Remaining in denial however can interfere with ones ability to tackle challenges. If someone is in denial, it often means they are trying to protect themselves, by refusing to accept the truth about something that's happening in their life.
Worth a read imo http://lifehacker.com/5972649/how-denial-negatively-affects-your-choices-and-what-you-can-do-about-it
-
How can you give your opinion above if you are not up to speed with the developments of the case? Makes no sense!
so as you think that both jeremy and luke are guilty can you give your opion on him.
-
so as you think that both jeremy and luke are guilty can you give your opion on him.
Already have done many moons back. You'll have to go and search for it because I have other things to do tonight.
-
Jeremy Bamber remains in prison not because he's been classified as a psychopath but because he has never taken responsibility for his crimes, rather he carries on the façade of a MOJ . His insistence of innocence also means that has not taken any of the rehabilitation courses but as he was also given a whole life tariff (because of the nature of his crimes) these will be of little value. Many of us here believe that he is a psychopath NOT because of any test or assessment but because of the nature of his crimes and the fact that he has not had the courage to admit responsibility. Just because someone claims they are innocent - doesn't mean they are and in the case, the facts speak for themselves - some people just refuse to face them.
Yet you cannot put forward a convincing argument to conclude he is guilty ;)
-
well it wont take long to give it agian.
-
Already have done many moons back. You'll have to go and search for it because I have other things to do tonight.
it wont take long to give agian do you think egan is reliable.
-
Yet you cannot put forward a convincing argument to conclude he is guilty ;)
In your opinion.
-
This from Carol lee's,
Yet documentation shows he refused to allow police access to his medical records pre-trial and did not want to be assessed, while a psychiatrist engaged by his defence declared that he displayed several classic psychopathic symptoms,” says Lee.
Chief among these was his genuine belief in his own innocence. “The psychiatrist believed that Jeremy did kill his family but had suppressed the memory until it was no longer real,” she adds.
Was this the Psychiatrist engaged by the defence who said he believed Bamber killed his family does anyone know? Why did he refuse police access to his medical files, they must have thought he was that way inclined, funny he did not want to be assessed early, makes sense to be assessed years later?
-
In your opinion.
If you could put forward a convincing argument I would change my opinion ;D
-
so protesting your innoce makes you psycopath that really is a catch 22.
-
If you could put forward a convincing argument I would change my opinion ;D
So your opinion depends on me? Weird!
-
so protesting your innoce makes you psycopath that really is a catch 22.
No Nugs - killing 5 innocent members of you family for gain and not taking responsibility because you feel no guilt makes you a psychopath. Sorry if it's confusing! ::)
-
This from Carol lee's,
Yet documentation shows he refused to allow police access to his medical records pre-trial and did not want to be assessed, while a psychiatrist engaged by his defence declared that he displayed several classic psychopathic symptoms,” says Lee.
Chief among these was his genuine belief in his own innocence. “The psychiatrist believed that Jeremy did kill his family but had suppressed the memory until it was no longer real,” she adds.
Was this the Psychiatrist engaged by the defence who said he believed Bamber killed his family does anyone know? Why did he refuse police access to his medical files, they must have thought he was that way inclined, funny he did not want to be assessed early, makes sense to be assessed years later?
so by that logic. the birmingham 6 would of been classed as pyscopaths.
-
so by the birmingham 6 would of been classed as pyscopaths.
Eh?
-
So your opinion depends on me? Weird!
No, my opinion depends on the absence of a convincing argument (From everyone)
The only person to give me a convincing argument was Scipio, however later on when reading (Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects Of Firearms Ballistics & Forensic Techniques) where Vincent J. DiMaio mentions a study that flaws the argument. Then I went back on the fence
-
well skips arguments would of been convinceing if they wernt made up on the spot.
-
No, my opinion depends on the absence of a convincing argument (From everyone)
The only person to give me a convincing argument was Scipio, however later on when reading (Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects Of Firearms Ballistics & Forensic Techniques) where Vincent J. DiMaio mentions a study that flaws the argument. Then I went back on the fence
Good for you - don't get splinters!
-
Good for you - don't get splinters!
Its OK the timber has been properly sanded ;D ;D ;D
-
Its OK the timber has been properly sanded ;D ;D ;D
That's good to hear - it might be susceptible to worms though! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
so by that logic. the birmingham 6 would of been classed as pyscopaths.
Its nothing to do with logic, read it, the psychiatrist (defence's own psychiatrist it looks like) believes or has belief about him being a psychopath or having committed the murders, believing something is a lot more committing yourself to the assessment.
-
Stephanie said
And it's duly noted Sandra, as usual, failed to give her opinion on Professor Egan
I tried to explain yesterday that several posts were being made at the time - I did not want to cause confusion by just posting anywhere, then I ran out of time. This habit of Stephanie's of drawing negative inferences because it suits her agenda to do so is as transparent as it is wearing.
My opinion of any expert who makes public "professional" diagnoses on cases in which s/he has had no involvement is that that expert is behaving in an unprofessional and unreliable manner, and in so doing, bringing the discipline which they represent into disrepute.
Ian Stephen, Paul Eckman and Vince Egan were all apparently guilty of this in the Luke Mitchell case, since none of them had any direct involvement in the case. I have no idea what involvement Vince Egan has had in the Jeremy Bamber case, and can therefore make no comment on anything he is reported to have said about that case.
However, an experience in 2013 creates a proviso to the above - Aamer Anwar was quoted in the Sun apparently making a specific comment regarding the Luke Mitchell case. When I contacted him, he explained that what he had been asked, and his answers to those questions, had been misrepresented in the article, and he went on to print a clear explanation and correction. Therefore, the quotes attributed to these experts may not be accurate, or may not be an accurate representation of their actual opinions of the cases quoted.
Ian Stephen, however, clung tenaciously to his reported "expert opinion" even when, on film, it was pointed out to him that the quotes on which he based his opinion of LM's psychological state were, in fact, lines from a computer game, and he agreed that he had based his entire opinion on what he had read in the newspapers. How can anyone respect an "expert" opinion made on such a basis?
-
i think in lukes case so called expert opionion was used as a subsitute for actull evedence.
-
I tried to explain yesterday that several posts were being made at the time - I did not want to cause confusion by just posting anywhere, then I ran out of time. This habit of Stephanie's of drawing negative inferences because it suits her agenda to do so is as transparent as it is wearing.
What do you mean 'you ran out of time?' Yet more deflection.. ::)
These are your projections Sandra!
-
Its nothing to do with logic, read it, the psychiatrist (defence's own psychiatrist it looks like) believes or has belief about him being a psychopath or having committed the murders, believing something is a lot more committing yourself to the assessment.
It's just a case of accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative ;) - and AT NO POINT mess with Mr In-between! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My opinion of any expert who makes public "professional" diagnoses on cases in which s/he has had no involvement is that that expert is behaving in an unprofessional and unreliable manner, and in so doing, bringing the discipline which they represent into disrepute.
Yet you posted here - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg351554.html#msg351554
"For what it's worth, if there is any suggestion that the confession and suicide are linked in any way, as you seem to suggest in your previous post, then it might not be a good idea for you to be discussing any of this publicly."
The above is just one example - I can't be bothered to post anymore nor do I have the time.
Lol - IMHO Sandra you are a hypocrit and my advise to anyone who reads your posts would be to ensure they research everything you post independently in order to establish the facts themselves as opposed to taking your word for it.
-
It's just a case of accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative ;) - and AT NO POINT mess with Mr In-between! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
it seemed that beliving you were innocent was a sighn of being a psycopath so by that logic anyone acused of a crime who protests there innonce is one catch 22.
-
it seemed that beliving you were innocent was a sighn of being a psycopath so by that logic anyone acused of a crime who protests there innonce is one catch 22.
It would seem that you didn't understand the point - it's not being innocent, it's KNOWING you are GUILTY but not taking responsibility or having any remorse or guilt. Trying to pull the wool to get released and reaping in some compo.
-
It would seem that you didn't understand the point - it's not being innocent, it's KNOWING you are GUILTY but not taking responsibility or having any remorse or guilt. Trying to pull the wool to get released and reaping in some compo.
the same interpretion could be given to somone who was genuinely innocent.
if you are innocent you cant sow remorse for somthing you dident do.
by the same logigic the birmingham 6 and the guilford 4 could o been labeled pyscopaths.
-
It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.
-
Sorry, cross posted - the very thing I was trying not to do yesterday!
-
I'm really confused by this thread - the video goes with Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test' - which I have read and questions the validity of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). This is the test that Jeremy is supposed to have PASSED so shouldn't you be singing it's praises?
Supporters who question the validity of the test, must then question Jeremy's results?
-
It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.
No, you see Sandra you are doing it again. Not only are you contradicting your posts but the meaning behind what you attempt to convey
My post was about denial in general. So I've no idea why you've posted as you have?
Denial, by the way, for anyone who may be interested, is a coping mechanism that gives one time to adjust to distressing situations.
Remaining in denial however can interfere with ones ability to tackle challenges. If someone is in denial, it often means they are trying to protect themselves, by refusing to accept the truth about something that's happening in their life.
Worth a read imo http://lifehacker.com/5972649/how-denial-negatively-affects-your-choices-and-what-you-can-do-about-it
-
It's similar to the "in denial" thing in prisons - there's no way for the prison regime to address claims of innocence, because, according to all of the rules, those who are in prison are there because they have been found guilty. Therefore, the only avenue open to the prison authorities is to interpret claims of innocence as "denial," leading them to have to conclude that the prisoner is still a risk to society because s/he "refuses" to recognise their "offending" behaviour. There's just nowhere within that system to consider the possibility that there may be no offending behaviour to address in the first place.
Not at all, of course some claims of innocence are valid but I'm not talking in GENERAL terms, I'm talking about the Bamber case. MOJ's are your particular interest and that's fine and I agree with you in general - but not in respect to this 'specific' offender.
-
his guilt or innocence doesnt depend on the tests simple.
ive allways stated i thought thses tests were complete bullshit.
-
Not at all, of course some claims of innocence are valid but I'm not talking in GENERAL terms, I'm talking about the Bamber case. MOJ's are your particular interest and that's fine and I agree with you in general - but not in respect to this 'specific' offender.
Apologies, that explains the confusion! I'm talking in general terms, because I don't know enough about the Jeremy Bamber case to comment specifically about it. Because this thread is in the "Other high profile cases" thread, and was started as a discussion of the Psycopathy Test generally (and not in relation to any particular case), I've carried on treating it as a general discussion except where I have specific knowledge of a specific case (hence my post about the "experts" in the Luke Mitchell case.)
-
No, you see Sandra you are doing it again. Not only are you contradicting your posts but the meaning behind what you attempt to convey
My post was about denial in general. So I've no idea why you've posted as you have?
I wasn't responding to your post
-
Apologies, that explains the confusion! I'm talking in general terms, because I don't know enough about the Jeremy Bamber case to comment specifically about it. Because this thread is in the "Other high profile cases" thread, and was started as a discussion of the Psycopathy Test generally (and not in relation to any particular case), I've carried on treating it as a general discussion except where I have specific knowledge of a specific case (hence my post about the "experts" in the Luke Mitchell case.)
I agree that the PCL-R test is inadequate - so passing it, is no more valid that failing it.
-
it wasnt to be specificaly a discusion of jeremy bamber that why i put it in the off topic thread.
-
it wasnt to be specificaly a discusion of jeremy bamber that why i put it in the off topic thread.
So why did you make the post below?
i actully have jeremy in mind specficaly ehen when i posted this
-
that was a typo i ment to put dident.
-
that was a typo i ment to put dident.
Yeah right! Nice edit though! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My concern with tests such as this, Eckman's "micro-expressions," polygraph testing etc is the selective ways they are used and interpreted.
Often, when it suits the authorities, they will trot out these tests as validation for whatever it is they are claiming, and vice versa. For example, here in Scotland, an MP by the name of John Lamont was most vocal about rolling out polygraph testing across the country on sex offenders to "check" if they were safe to be released, or to remain at liberty - fail the polygraph and they either don't get out, or are returned to jail.
When Luke Mitchell and his mother both passed polygraph tests, the same Mr Lamont was equally vocal in insisting that prisoners should not be allowed to take the tests, and publicise the results "in these circumstances." Mr Lamont, and others like him, were happy to accept polygraph results as "proof" of guilt, but not as "proof" of innocence.
-
Yeah right! Nice edit though! ;D ;D ;D ;D
belive it or not not everything is jeremy bamber related.
i thought the topic i thought the topic was worthy of discussion initself.
-
My concern with tests such as this, Eckman's "micro-expressions," polygraph testing etc is the selective ways they are used and interpreted.
Often, when it suits the authorities, they will trot out these tests as validation for whatever it is they are claiming, and vice versa. For example, here in Scotland, an MP by the name of John Lamont was most vocal about rolling out polygraph testing across the country on sex offenders to "check" if they were safe to be released, or to remain at liberty - fail the polygraph and they either don't get out, or are returned to jail.
When Luke Mitchell and his mother both passed polygraph tests, the same Mr Lamont was equally vocal in insisting that prisoners should not be allowed to take the tests, and publicise the results "in these circumstances." Mr Lamont, and others like him, were happy to accept polygraph results as "proof" of guilt, but not as "proof" of innocence.
so ethere he was advocating a test he doesnt belive works or his rejecting the results of a test he belives does work.
-
belive it or not not everything is jeremy bamber related.
i thought the topic i thought the topic was worthy of discussion initself.
This test is - given that supporters and the CT like to mention that he passed it. If you have no faith in the test, then you should have no faith in him passing it?
-
so ethere he was advocating a test he doesnt belive works or his rejecting the results of a test he belives does work.
Never did get to the bottom of it, nugnug - he point blank refused to answer all of the questions put to him about his conflicting opinions. As a distraction, a question was raised in the Scottish parliament asking whether or not permission had been given to release the video of Luke passing the test - like I'd have been stupid enough to make it public without such permission!!
-
This test is - given that supporters and the CT like to mention that he passed it. If you have no faith in the test, then you should have no faith in him passing it?
i dont ive allways said i dont but then this test isnt the reason i have some doubts about the conviction.
if hed failed it that wouldent be proof he was guilty passing it doesnt prove hes innocent.
-
i dont ive allways said i dont but then this test isnt the reason i have some doubts about the conviction.
if hed failed it that wouldent be proof he was guilty passing it doesnt prove hes innocent.
Fair answer! :)
-
I wasn't responding to your post
If that is true, Point me to where 'denial' had been introduced on this thread before I posted about it?
-
the same interpretion could be given to somone who was genuinely innocent.
if you are innocent you cant sow remorse for somthing you dident do.
by the same logigic the birmingham 6 and the guilford 4 could o been labeled pyscopaths.
Ridiculous, Michael O'Brien, for example, never presented himself the same way in which Bamber has/does!
-
Yeah right! Nice edit though! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I spotted that too! ;D ;D ;D lol
-
I agree that the PCL-R test is inadequate - so passing it, is no more valid that failing it.
Agreed!
-
This test is - given that supporters and the CT like to mention that he passed it. If you have no faith in the test, then you should have no faith in him passing it?
Not dissimilar to lie detector tests, as discussed elsewhere. ::)
-
Ridiculous, Michael O'Brien, for example, never presented himself the same way in which Bamber has/does!
he protested his innoncence now that could of been interpreted to mean he was in denial or that some sort of pyscopathic tendency.
but it turned out that he was actully innocent.
-
Never did get to the bottom of it, nugnug - he point blank refused to answer all of the questions put to him about his conflicting opinions. As a distraction, a question was raised in the Scottish parliament asking whether or not permission had been given to release the video of Luke passing the test - like I'd have been stupid enough to make it public without such permission!!
i think i might ask him agian not that im really expecting an answer.
-
I agree that the PCL-R test is inadequate - so passing it, is no more valid that failing it.
My criticism of PCL-R is that its easy for an amateur or non professional to use it.
If someone with the experience and calibre of Professor Vincent Egan or forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone for example conducted the PCL-R then in that sense its a perfectly valid tool.
But if for example "TV psychologist" like Emma Kenny conducted the PCL-R test then I wont care too much about the result.
-
he protested his innoncence now that could of been interpreted to mean he was in denial or that some sort of pyscopathic tendency.
but it turned out that he was actully innocent.
No Nugs, that's NOT what a psychopath is.
-
My criticism of PCL-R is that its easy for an amateur or non professional to use it.
If someone with the experience and calibre of Professor Vincent Egan or forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone for example conducted the PCL-R then in that sense its a perfectly valid tool.
But if for example "TV psychologist" like Emma Kenny conducted the PCL-R test then I wont care too much about the result.
Everyone has bias's and this test is open to being influence by them. Someone asked how you would define 'glibness' - which is a valid question and clearly my view of what was/is glib, will be different from someone else's.
-
Everyone has bias's and this test is open to being influence by them. Someone asked how you would define 'glibness' - which is a valid question and clearly my view of what was/is glib, will be different from someone else's.
Slick, smooth talking, insincere and shallow. Howzat?
-
Slick, smooth talking, insincere and shallow. Howzat?
Yes, ha, ha! But I meant that I may think someone is being glib, someone else may not and vice versa. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, ha, ha! But I meant that I may think someone is being glib, someone else may not and vice versa. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Right. Gotcha. Yes, you have a point.
-
Right. Gotcha. Yes, you have a point.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Slick, smooth talking, insincere and shallow. Howzat?
Glib - 1.
readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely so:
a glib talker; glib answers.
Or, knows the words but not the music - their actions don't match their words.
;D ;D
-
People forget that someone diagnosed with psychopathic tendencies in their early life might very well test negative for them in mid or later life, someting which is referred to as burn-out. What Jeremy Bamber has now become could very well be completely different to what he was thirty years ago.
-
People forget that someone diagnosed with psychopathic tendencies in their early life might very well test negative for them in mid or later life, someting which is referred to as burn-out. What Jeremy Bamber has now become could very well be completely different to what he was thirty years ago.
Maybe he's not a psychopath, maybe he's just a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard?
Has he ever been tested to see if he is a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard? :-\
-
People forget that someone diagnosed with psychopathic tendencies in their early life might very well test negative for them in mid or later life, someting which is referred to as burn-out. What Jeremy Bamber has now become could very well be completely different to what he was thirty years ago.
John, it's very possible -No, probable!!!- that we're all completely different now to how we were 30 years ago ;D
-
No Nugs, that's NOT what a psychopath is.
acording to carol ann lee. it is read the previos quate made on here.
-
Maybe he's not a psychopath, maybe he's just a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard?
Has he ever been tested to see if he is a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard? :-\
There are a lot of those about ,though I'd change murder to manslaughter involving victims of this trait.
-
Drug dealers/barons fit the bill of Greedy,Evil,Murderous,Lying Bastards. Terrorists fit the bill too.
-
Glib - 1.
readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely so:
a glib talker; glib answers.
Or, knows the words but not the music - their actions don't match their words.
;D ;D
who decides that it could apply to anybody.
-
Maybe he's not a psychopath, maybe he's just a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard?
Has he ever been tested to see if he is a Greedy, Evil, Murderous, lying Bastard? :-\
That's a pretty good description of a psychopath H ;D
-
People forget that someone diagnosed with psychopathic tendencies in their early life might very well test negative for them in mid or later life, someting which is referred to as burn-out. What Jeremy Bamber has now become could very well be completely different to what he was thirty years ago.
They also learn how to play 'the game' better.
-
They also learn how to play 'the game' better.
and duping others gives their lives meaning (in their minds).
"Psychopaths are always witty and articulate and just about at all times “glib.” They can be “amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a easy and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely on the other hand convincing stories…
They can be extremely powerful in presenting themselves nicely and are generally very likeable and charming. To some people, then again, they appear too slick and smooth, too of course insincere and superficial. Astute observers always uncover the impression that psychopaths are play-acting, mechanically “reading their lines.”
http://psychopathvictims.com/psychopath/how-to-spot-a-psychopath
-
If Jeremy is guilty, I believe he has psychogenic amnesia.
What about the allegation (if it's true) that Jeremy grew some weed in his garden, and his admission of stealing from the Osea Road office? Can "psychogenic amnesia" selectively hide just the most heinous (or most distressing) crimes committed? Does "psychogenic amnesia" really exist or is it just a theory?
-
and duping others gives their lives meaning (in their minds).
"Psychopaths are always witty and articulate and just about at all times “glib.” They can be “amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a easy and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely on the other hand convincing stories…
They can be extremely powerful in presenting themselves nicely and are generally very likeable and charming. To some people, then again, they appear too slick and smooth, too of course insincere and superficial. Astute observers always uncover the impression that psychopaths are play-acting, mechanically “reading their lines.”
http://psychopathvictims.com/psychopath/how-to-spot-a-psychopath
Guess that makes some of us on the forum 'astute observers' ;D ;D
-
What about the allegation (if it's true) that Jeremy grew some weed in his garden, and his admission of stealing from the Osea Road office? Can "psychogenic amnesia" selectively hide just the most heinous (or most distressing) crimes committed? Does "psychogenic amnesia" really exist or is it just a theory?
well its hard to tell really becouse anyone whos got doesnt know theyve got it.
it would be more or less impossble for anyone else to tell i think it does exist though.
-
well its hard to tell really becouse anyone whos got doesnt know theyve got it.
it would be more or less impossble for anyone else to tell i think it does exist though.
I think one would have to get to a totally non functioning state before "psychogenic amnesia" kicked in.
-
I think one would have to get to a totally non functioning state before "psychogenic amnesia" kicked in.
I had it once - but I can't remember it! ;D ;D ;D ;D