Jeremy Bamber was/is a psychopath

[Erik Narramore]

The point is that a personality disorder must be diagnosed.  The guilt camp are using generic terms such as 'categorised' and 'classified' because they want Jeremy Bamber to be a psychopath and you want to ascribe the relevant traits to him rather than wait for a clinical evaluation.  They are skipping the essential step of somebody evaluating and observing him over months, maybe years, and offering a formal diagnosis - perhaps a tentative diagnosis.

But the main point is that the guilt camp have no basis to call Jeremy Bamber a psychopath, and in fact the evidence from clinicians who have evaluated him points the other way.  This is just the simple truth, but they will not listen.

The reason they need to believe Jeremy is a psychopath is because it fits some theory of theirs about his motivations, whether it's an inheritance motive or they just think he instantiated some sort of rage there and then (I myself suspect the latter could have occurred, but it doesn't to me follow that he is a psychopath).

[Erik Narramore]

Let me state the important points, which are:

(i). We do not know if Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath in the clinical sense.
(ii). We do know that there is no evidence to support the assertion that he is a psychopath.
(iii). We also know that just because somebody has committed mass murder, it does not necessarily follow that the person is a psychopath (though I accept it is tempting to think of the perpetrator that way, for perfectly understandable reasons).

The guilt camp are seeking to relegate (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the status of opinion.  It is not an opinion, it is a fair and neutral assessment of what is currently known.  I am open to changing my mind just as soon as better evidence comes along.

The way I see it is if Jeremy is a psychopath, then he is a psychopath; if he isn't a psychopath, then he isn't a psychopath.  I have no vested interest in it one way or the other.  One or the other may help the defence or the prosecution, and in point of fact the guilt camp may wish to consider that in some circumstances a diagnosis of a personality disorder can be a basis for a plea of diminished responsibility in murder cases.  But the point is, either way, whoever it helps, I am neutral and just seek fact, and when I find it, I just accept it as fact.

People who spout on about abnormal psychology can be obstinate and stubborn and often seem to possesses no relevant knowledge of the field they pronounce on, nor any professional clinical credentials in psychology, psychiatry, neurology or some other relevant field.  We know this straight-away because of their slovenly language, using terms like 'psychopath', 'categorised' and 'classified', which are not correct clinical terminology, and copying and pasting indicative lists from the web.  Typically for amateurs, they insist they know things they cannot know.  They know Jeremy is a psychopath.  For sure.  They will not admit doubt or show humility.  They won't listen to didactic advice, facts or evidence or reasonable arguments, at all.

[Erik Narramore]

The account given in Wilkes' book of a meeting with a psychiatrist in Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C.'s chambers, is unsourced, unreliable and inaccurate.  I know this for a fact.

[Erik Narramore]

Another 'tell' that the person mouthing off lacks real knowledge (i.e. experience in the field) is the use of cut-and-paste information.  Someone without real knowledge is vulnerable to the received wisdom of others.

Those who say Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath are marrying up apparent character flaws and personality traits with a list they've found on the internet  - hardly the most promising basis for a psychological evaluation.

And before someone says that I lack knowledge and experience, yes I do - that is the whole point I am making!  Unlike the guilt camp, I acknowledge my limitations and I am humble enough to remind people that I don't know things.

Indeed, I would go further and argue that the whole basis of true knowledge is not knowing.  The problem is that some people get it the wrong way round and start from the premise that they know things they don't, then they fit the facts to what they don't know.  It's no surprise that the end result is inferior.

It's rather like listening to Kerry Daynes, who has never met her subject, tell us that Jeremy had an off-switch during childhood and this stopped him feeling and emoting normally, as if Jeremy is a machine, like Arnie in The Terminator.  I suppose it's proof that credentials are not everything.  Perhaps we should rely on evidence instead, including practitioners who have actually evaluated him?

Some people allow vanity to overtake judgement and forget that learning requires humility in the first place.

[Erik Narramore]

I should stress that this is not in itself a pro-defence or pro-prosecution point.  You could, potentially, argue that what I am about to say favours the guilt side.  Depends on how you want to look at it.

For those who disagree:

My view is not just an opinion, it's based on the available evidence.  If you have new or different evidence that tells us he is a psychopath, then I will defer to your view and start calling him a psychopath.  Beyond your own opinion, do you have such evidence?  If so, could you please share it with us?

If you are relying entirely on your own opinion that he is a psychopath per se, because of what he has done, then I can understand that because what he is said to have done is absolutely appalling and atrocious, but strictly, it does not make him an actual psychopath.  What it makes him is a 'psycho': a colloquialism harking back to the original meaning of the term psychopath, but of nil or limited clinical significance.

It is the case that just because somebody commits a mass murder, it does not follow that he or she has an anti-social personality disorder.  If you disagree, could you provide sources or otherwise tell us what your clinical qualifications and experience are in psychiatry, neurology and/or psychology?  Thanks.

I have none whatsoever (other than personal experience), and in this instance I rely on what the experts say, not because I automatically believe experts, but because in this case they are the ones who have direct contact with him and are therefore in a position to offer a considered opinion, based on observations of him over a period of years.  I accept that this is not perfect because custody is an controlled environment in which they won't be able to observe the full range of behaviour, but at the same time, they don't have a vested interest in lying or saying that he is something that he isn't.

The basic fact is that he has not been, and never has been, diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or an anti-social personality disorder.  To the best of our knowledge, he is not psychologically abnormal, though he may well have other mental health issues due to his confinement.

[Erik Narramore]

If Jeremy is the killer, then I think he is crazy.  I think he would have to be to have committed the crime, given all the background and taking everything into account.  That doesn't mean I think he suffers from a mental illness or a personality disorder.  Strictly speaking, you don't have to in order to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act - you just need to have a mental health problem that requires treatment, in this case in penal confinement.

[Erik Narramore]

Links provided by bluffers on this subject often refer to the classification of personality disorders in the sense of setting out a taxonomy.  These people don't appear to realise that clinical practitioners diagnose patients, they don't classify them like zoo animals.  And even if they do, they certainly don't 'classify' them after one visit.

[Erik Narramore]

The point is that a personality disorder must be diagnosed.  Using generic terms such as 'categorised' and 'classified' indicates you want Jeremy to be a psychopath and you want to ascribe the relevant traits to him rather than wait for a clinical evaluation.  You are skipping the essential step of somebody evaluating and observing him over months, maybe years, and offering a formal diagnosis - perhaps a tentative diagnosis.

But the main point is that the guilt camp have no basis to call him a psychopath, and in fact the evidence from clinicians who have evaluated him points the other way.  This is just the simple truth, but you will not listen.

The reason they need to believe Jeremy is a psychopath is because it fits some theory of theirs about his motivations, whether it's an inheritance motive or they just think he instantiated some sort of rage there and then (I myself suspect the latter could have occurred, but it doesn't to me follow that he is a psychopath).