Asperger's, Psychopathy

[egotrout]

Jul 25, 2017 7:01:19 GMT ambertmbg said:

EAR's mental health has always intrigued me. I've always thought he was acting crazier than he actually was. It's like he has basic knowledge of symptoms and used that knowledge to pretend to be someone he is not. Like when a patient quotes symptoms verbatim from WebMD in an attempt to get pain meds, EAR's behavior is almost *too* textbook.

Egotrout, do you have any examples of his behavior that have led you to believe his crying and mommy issues were legit and not an act? How much abnormal psych would the average person have known at that time? I know the victim did believe he was not pretending.

His compulsions (ransacking and tying and retying his victims), I do think were genuine, but I never felt like the crying was real. What behaviors would you look for to determine if someone was merely acting?

There was an agitation, impulsiveness, and intensity to this set of behaviors that suggests GSK was not simply wasting valuable time putting on a show (i.e., going into another room and freaking out). The crying is almost too bizarre to be believed, yes, and seems to be too much of a contrast to all his other behaviors. My question is, why would he feign this sort of behavior? What message would he hope to send law enforcement about himself?

During GSK's offending period, detailed knowledge of abpsych was not that common, even for a university student; except for a masters or doctoral candidate or someone in medical/psychiatric residency. Otherwise, you would have had to have been, say, a patient or close to someone who was. (It has been suggested GSK worked in a hospital setting at one time.) Also, during that time, the DSM was not readily available.

in the end, we only have the victims' recollections to go on, combined with the many different adjectives that different authors have attached to the behaviors described by the victims. The other thing is that taken with the entire picture of his (known) behaviors, the behaviors do not really fit what would have then been a textbook definition of a psychotic disorder, for example. To determine if someone is an actor, you would have to observe them over time in a clinical setting.

[Mitchell]

Jul 29, 2017 17:05:55 GMT egotrout said:

Jul 25, 2017 7:01:19 GMT ambertmbg said:

EAR's mental health has always intrigued me. I've always thought he was acting crazier than he actually was. It's like he has basic knowledge of symptoms and used that knowledge to pretend to be someone he is not. Like when a patient quotes symptoms verbatim from WebMD in an attempt to get pain meds, EAR's behavior is almost *too* textbook.

Egotrout, do you have any examples of his behavior that have led you to believe his crying and mommy issues were legit and not an act? How much abnormal psych would the average person have known at that time? I know the victim did believe he was not pretending.

His compulsions (ransacking and tying and retying his victims), I do think were genuine, but I never felt like the crying was real. What behaviors would you look for to determine if someone was merely acting?

There was an agitation, impulsiveness, and intensity to this set of behaviors that suggests GSK was not simply wasting valuable time putting on a show (i.e., going into another room and freaking out). The crying is almost too bizarre to be believed, yes, and seems to be too much of a contrast to all his other behaviors. My question is, why would he feign this sort of behavior? What message would he hope to send law enforcement about himself?

During GSK's offending period, detailed knowledge of abpsych was not that common, even for a university student; except for a masters or doctoral candidate or someone in medical/psychiatric residency. Otherwise, you would have had to have been, say, a patient or close to someone who was. (It has been suggested GSK worked in a hospital setting at one time.) Also, during that time, the DSM was not readily available.

in the end, we only have the victims' recollections to go on, combined with the many different adjectives that different authors have attached to the behaviors described by the victims. The other thing is that taken with the entire picture of his (known) behaviors, the behaviors do not really fit what would have then been a textbook definition of a psychotic disorder, for example. To determine if someone is an actor, you would have to observe them over time in a clinical setting.

In other words, it could be said that there wasn't much accurate information available in popular culture on which EAR could base any attempted malingering. But, couldn't this, in itself, be the reason his malingering was not suggestive of-or did not meet the criteria for-any diagnosable disorder?

If all EAR could draw on was his experience as a film-goer, he may have thought he was putting on a bravura performance of the caliber of Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. As you stated above, psychiatry was a far more esoteric field in those days and accurate portrayals were few and far between.

Or...maybe EAR's histrionics were legit. Maybe he was awash in waves of post-attack melancholy. Afflicted with guilt and wracked with shame. Or maybe he was a weepy drunk and indulged in a little too much of the odorless(and undetectable by victims) wodka on occasion.

Were actual tears ever observed by any victims or was this all an overheard-from-another-room '80's sitcom-esque gag? Which raises the third possibility, the antics were simply a goof. EAR found this behavior amusing. Were there any news reports that came out just prior to this behavior which featured speculative psychoanalysis that EAR may have been playing up to?

[ambertmbg]

Maybe I assume the average person knows more than they actually do. My mom spent her life treating mental illness, so clinical language was tossed around in my house quite often. She would show me physical manifestations of mental health issues while people watching. I can remember specifically looking for cuts on thin people's knuckles (bulimia) and seeing hands with multiple rings on each finger and thinking, "probably OCD."

Your point about being inconvenienced by the behavior is really interesting. I agree that he wouldn't just waste time crying about his mommy if it wasn't necessary. I can't put my finger on it, but something just doesn't ring true about the whole thing.

It comes down to: is he batcrap crazy, or was he trolling? Can it be both?!

[bullymack]

The scripted way he spoke indicates to me he wasn't able to rattle off BS like a politician or televangelist. Any ideas where that fits into mental illness or learning disability?

[ripost]

You make a good point. People on the aspergers/autism spectrum are not exactly great athletes. I dont believe they are particularly athletic or practical. Practicality and athleticism are two things I do associate with ear.

I know this is an old post, just wanted to say I disagree. You might be right in general, but: Many great athletes have had asperger’s. That can be their special interest. Clay Marzo, the surfer is one example. Check out his book «Just add water» for a good read. Practicality can also be something they excel at. Mark DeFriest is a technical mastermind, but also a criminal. They made a documentary about him that is well worth checking out.

[attxlatt121]

I don’t know much about Aspergers but I do think EARONS had some form of OCD. His stalking and the way he planned his attacks follow this pattern. The way he had to stick to a script too.

[1977]

I just don’t think we can fully assess anything about him until he’s caught and examined. The only clues we have about his mental illness lie in what he did, not what he said. I strongly believe the things that he said were solely said to terrify, confuse and/or annoy his victims. People are generally afraid of “crazy” people, hence the bizarre and spontaneous crying - no one would expect the person in control of the wheel at the crime to begin sobbing or talking to themselves. I’m sure he was fully aware that it added an element of fear. He clearly wasn’t too upset about offending “mommy” or “Bonnie” if he continued to offend, managed not to have a breakdown or ever tell anyone about his crimes. Sure, maybe there is a minute possibility he wasn’t entirely falsifying his comments to victims. Even then, we have no definitive proof of what it means until he’s caught, and I’m sure many “Bonnies” have been thoroughly investigated as leads to no avail. I don’t think he suffered from anything besides narcissism, possible antisocial personality disorder and/or psychopathy/sociopathy - and even then, these terms are all extremely controversial. We can’t identify what made him the way that he was, which I’m sure many people are interested to find out, but I would bet it was a combination of untreated mental illness and severe childhood/adolescent trauma.

Edited to add, psychology was very different in the 1970’s and many of these terms meant different things or had limited understanding compared to what we know now. Additionally, “severe childhood/adolescent trauma” doesn’t necessarily mean he was neglected or physically abused for years on end by a parent, foster parent, etc. So much as one incident, or several smaller incidents (such as bullying, rejection, etc.) that caused him discomfort could have been perceived as severely traumatic to him.

[pannonia]

I wanted to add an encounter with an autistic 11-year-old child I had in a playground. The boy was systematically annoying all the grown-ups around the playground:

- he went to their bags, carefully timing the moment when the adults weren't looking, and ran off with waterbottles when he found them. While running off, he quickly took a sip from them. Knowing that the rightful owners would not drink from the bottle anymore. I observed this half a dozen times in an hour.
- I saw him grope the buttocks of a mother on the playground. I yelled at the boy, he smirked at me and ran off. The lady didn't think much of it and thought he stumbled into her by accident. I told her that he did that on purpose and she just laughed it off "Don't be silly, he's just a boy!"
- He went into a climbing tower and made sure a couple of kids were around him. Then he waited until a random grown-up saw him and only THEN he pulled down his pants to expose himself. The grownup yelled at him, he smirked, pulled up his pants up and ran off.

I confronted the mother of the child after he tried to steal one of our juice bottles and she said "This young man is autistic, our therapist recommended we seek public venues so he can get used to being around many people". I carefully told her that I believe her son appears to get a thrill out of being anti-social, she just shrugged.

To me - as a layman - this child clearly gets a kick out of causing psychological distress to grown-ups. It was a game to him. He knows he can get away with it because he's a child. Maybe I am an alarmist but if I was the parent of this boy I'd be very concerned what kind of grown-up he turns into. Now if I think of VR or EARONS, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was on the autistic spectrum. And specifically not the "I can't read others emotions and I just like being by mself" spectrum but in the "I have no empathy and I thoroughly enjoy causing trouble that visibly hurts and freaks out other people" range.