Claims JB is a psychopath

[Caroline]

It's not just that guilters like to assert he is a psychopath with scant evidence, it's that he continuously asserts that he isn't while providing no evidence whatsoever except a few cherry picked lines from a report he likes.

Confidentiality means no one that has assessed him could contradict what he claims.

What we do know is that it bothers him a great deal to be labelled as one, not least perhaps because it would further invalidate the already worthless results of his "lie detector" stunt.

Being faced with the accusation of being a psychopath makes him have to confront himself and the notion that others have sussed him out. He doesn't like that.

[Holly Goodhead]

You’re sneaky Holly http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11438.msg587098#msg587098

Please stop attempting to make trouble.  I have not edited any of your posts recently.

[Caroline]

Which authors are you referring to?  If the excerpts Myster has posted how does this equate to a diagnosis of psychopathy?

In what way does it not? Do you think the psychiatrist pulled the notion from the top of his head? Do you really believe (like others) that the defence would seek the psychiatrists services and not have him meet Bamber?

[Holly Goodhead]

It's not just that guilters like to assert he is a psychopath with scant evidence, it's that he continuously asserts that he isn't while providing no evidence whatsoever except a few cherry picked lines from a report he likes.

Confidentiality means no one that has assessed him could contradict what he claims.

What we do know is that it bothers him a great deal to be labelled as one, not least perhaps because it would further invalidate the already worthless results of his "lie detector" stunt.

I doubt the CT would be daft enough to quote a practicing psychologist if the info was in any way bogus.  It could backfire badly.

[APRIL]

Which authors are you referring to?  If the excerpts Myster has posted how does this equate to a diagnosis of psychopathy?

Which were you referring to to?

[Caroline]

I doubt the CT would be daft enough to quote a practicing psychologist if the info was in any way bogus.  It could backfire badly.

Seriously?├

[Holly Goodhead]

In what way does it not? Do you think the psychiatrist pulled the notion from the top of his head? Do you really believe (like others) that the defence would seek the psychiatrists services and not have him meet Bamber?

In what was does it?  The defence sought the service of Dr Bradley re SC.

[Caroline]

In what was does it?  The defence sought the service of Dr Bradley re SC.

They sought the services of a psychiatrist that classified Bamber as a psychopath. You may not like it but there you go, denying it won't make it go away!

[Holly Goodhead]

Seriously?├

Of course.

If it came to the professors attention he was being misquoted on a website run on behalf of JB I think he would have something to say about it.

[Common sense]

I doubt the CT would be daft enough to quote a practicing psychologist if the info was in any way bogus.  It could backfire badly.

Do you mean like when they tried to claim CAL had only exchanged 5-6 letters with Bamber and that backfired badly?

I'm sure the quote is genuine but no one has seen any of his 27 assessments to be able to put it into context have they?

The entire M.O of his campaign is dishonestly misrepresenting evidence but sure, this time we can take his word for it. Seems legit.

[Caroline]

Of course.

If it came to the professors attention he was being misquoted on a website run on behalf of JB I think he would have something to say about it.

I was going to mention the disgraceful antics a few months back concerning CAL and the Bamber letters, however CS beat me to it. Still no apology - they haven't got that in them.

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you mean like when they tried to claim CAL had only exchanged 5-6 letters with Bamber and that backfired badly?

I'm sure the quote is genuine but no one has seen any of his 27 assessments to be able to put it into context have they?

The entire M.O of his campaign is dishonestly misrepresenting evidence but sure, this time we can take his word for it. Seems legit.

I honestly take no notice of any of it.

[Holly Goodhead]

I was going to mention the disgraceful antics a few months back concerning CAL and the Bamber letters, however CS beat me to it. Still no apology - they haven't got that in them.

Nothing to do with me. 

[Common sense]

Nothing to do with me.

Do you think it's nothing to do with Bamber either?

You are ignoring all evidence of Bamber making dishonest claims as though it means nothing.

[Caroline]

Nothing to do with me.

I didn't say it was - but you did make comment in respect to the letters at the time.