The Pistorius narcissist diagnosis: Experts got it wrong

45
8420
Oscar Pistorius - CNN Courtroom screen shot
Oscar Pistorius - CNN Courtroom screen shot

BETHESDA, Md., July 2, 2014 — The experts in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial in South Africa testified this week as to the athlete’s state of mind at the time of Reeva Steenkamp’s murder and in the days since the tragedy.

Unfortunately, the experts who spent the past 30 days evaluating Pistorius came to a conclusion that speaks of misinformation and contradictions.

The experts who evaluated Oscar Pistorius got it half right:

  1. Right – The doctors and therapists who evaluated Pistorius testified this week that the Paralympic athlete was not suffering from any form of mental illness or impairment when he shot and murdered Reeva Steenkamp on the eve of Valentine’s Day 2013 in his South Africa residence.
  2. Wrong – Despite labeling Pistorius as highly insecure and depressed, the experts claim there are no clear indications that he is a narcissist with a personality disorder (NPD) or a psychopath/sociopath with deep pathological defects.

This conclusion is troubling and contradictory, because, narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths act abusively, not only because they lack a conscience and are void of empathy and remorse, but because they are deeply insecure, highly fearful of abandonment, and paranoid. When cornered and caught, these pathological types drop the grandiose and entitled front and instead manipulate the consciousness of others by engaging and parading their insecurities to gain pity.


As Martha Stout, Ph.D. notes in her book The Sociopath Next Door, not all narcissists are sociopaths, but all sociopaths are narcissists. More importantly, both individuals with NPD and marked by sociopathy do not like themselves. Knowing this may garner immediate sympathy and empathy from many. Unfortunately, gaining our sympathy and empathy is exactly what perpetuates the harmful behavior of these predators.

The term “narcissism” is derived directly from the myth of Narcissus. Like Narcissus, narcissists appear to always and forever be gazing lovingly at themselves. If you interpret Narcissus or narcissism this way, you would be half correct. Narcissus is always and forever gazing loving at his reflection, not at himself—there is a difference.

A reflection of a person is a distortion; it is not the inner reality and nuances that reveal our nature. The narcissistic sociopath falls in love with a distorted self-image, not with his/her spirit. It seems that the myth behind the myth has been obscured by the images depicting the myth. What a travesty of misinformation and interpretation.

Sociopaths hide their true nature from themselves and from everybody else. They avoid looking within, because they hate themselves and fear being reminded of why they hate themselves so much.

And about that reflection pool we always see Narcissus, in artistic imagery, staring into adoringly–that reflection pool is a shallow puddle. It’s this shallow, muddied effect that makes narcissists/sociopaths so dangerous and why even the experts get it wrong the majority of the time, because even the experts misinterpret the myth, which leads to misinterpretation of what it means to be narcissistic.

Instead of being real and sharing their inner fears and shame, sociopaths present to the world an idealized reflection, a projection of who they want us to think they are and of who they desperately wish to be. These projections are mere shadows and imaginings of their surroundings and are composed of nothing real or tangible.

Pistorius wanted to be seen as a super man and indestructible. And now? Now that he has been exposed? What happened to those projections?

The answer is simple. Those old projections no longer serve his current agenda, which is to save himself from punishment. Understanding and accepting how easily a narcissist/sociopath can switch gears should be obvious to the experts and should be the reason society pursues just punishment and insists that Pistorius be accountable for his/her actions. In light of this recent diagnosis (or misdiagnosis rather), it appears Pistorius may never receive just punishment.

Why do we as a society keep excusing this behavior and refuse to label the behavior for what it is? Why are we sympathizing with Pistorius? Are we afraid of being judged ourselves one day for acting abusively or carelessly? Or are we already acting abusively and carelessly on a regular basis, and we don’t want to seem like hypocrites by punishing these fools simply because they got caught? Or do we see this type of behavior as “not a big deal” and that people just have bad days and do dumb things under duress?

A woman is dead as a result of this man’s “dumb” act. Her name is Reeva Steenkamp. Society, for reasons many claim to be civil, has paused to consider her murderer’s defense. Reeva did not have the opportunity to pause and defend herself, so why is Pistorius demanding and receiving the grace and mercy he denied Reeva who did nothing to provoke Pistorius to shoot her four (4) times through a locked bathroom door? It is speculated by many that Reeva locked herself in the toilet to flee eminent danger without fully realizing that nothing could separate her from the destructiveness of Pistorius’s explosive rage.

Pistorius destroyed a woman’s life and negatively impacted the lives of all of her family, friends, and loved ones. He’s now claiming to be an insecure and fearful victim of society and circumstance? Where do his self-pity and projected blame end and his accountability begin? Pistorius uses self-pity, “loss” of limbs, and the state of crime in South Africa to dupe the experts and the public into believing he is a rat in a cage who reacts in fear when his cage is rattled.

Well, don’t we all!?

The difference between Pistorius and the rest of us non-sociopaths is that we have empathy, remorse, and a conscience. Together, these qualities would not allow us to a.) murder someone due to base feelings of insecurity and b.) staunchly defend our actions with the hope of eluding punishment. On the contrary, unlike Pistorius, we would be ashamed and surrender to the justice system and plead guilty.

In addition, it should come as no surprise that the latest reports mention that Pistorius is now suicidal. After all, sociopaths suffer, too, despite what many want to believe and suffer deep stress and anxiety when they get caught so publicly and are forced to answer for their behavior. Threatening suicide is the ultimate pathological tool used to control the consciousness of an entire society and garners the attention and protection Pistorius desperately needs. It’s no wonder Pistorius is showing signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder: His mask slipped and he had no control, because he is not in control of his nature and never has been.


 

Paula Carrasquillo is a victim/survivor’s advocate and author of the novelette, Escaping the Boy: My Life with a Sociopath. Follow her on Twitter and check out her personal blog.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Jono

    In my opinion, there was never any evidence that Oscar was a sociopath and that there’s very little evidence that he was abusive in any of his previous relationships, I’ve said that from the beginning and was always skeptical about that. Also, I believed that his reactions in court were real rather than faked. The only reason why I took the NPD thing seriously at one point was because a forensic psychiatrist Dr Leonard Carr, suggested he may have it in the media, after his performance on the stand. However, even he said that he cannot diagnose him without putting him in the chair. This report is not surpassing to me.

    I would generally trust an experts opinion over any member of the general public. If the report came back saying that he did suffer from NPD, I would of accepted that.

    • PaulaCarrasquillo

      There IS evidence of past abuse of GFs and of his friends in general. That testimony simply isn’t being highlighted in the media. It’s not titillating or juicy enough, I suppose. And society really has no idea what abuse is. Any form of control and manipulation IS abusive. A great example is how he handled getting out of being accountable for the gun incident at the restaurant. By asking his friends to cover for him shooting off the gun by taking on the blame themselves…that’s manipulative AND abusive. But it seems most would rather sit in comfort and rely on the so-called experts to think for them. That’s not contributing to a resolution. That’s using your brain to decide not to use your brain because you somehow think an experts brain is more capable of deducing facts based on a a few letters after their name.

      • LazyFair

        Good answer…. and I can only add that an out-patient psych eval is not a comprehensive one … for obvious reasons … thus, has provided flawed results. The results that have been read to the court are biased and lean toward Oscar’s defense… common sense.

        • Jono

          Everyone says that he should of been an in-patient and the ruling to make him an out-patient was an unusual one. Although, I really don’t think that would of made much difference to the final conclusion if he was an in-patient, except perhaps providing a bit more information. Also both reports say that he was suffering from anxiety after the event and both reports say that he did not suffer from a psychiatric disorder that could affected him on the night he shot his girlfriend. Surely, a unanimous conclusion by a panel of 3 psychiatrists and 1 psychologist is highly unlikely to be biased? Besides, if the psychologist was really biased, I would of thought that he would of concluded that Pistorius did actually suffer from GAD, which is what that panel was intended to determine. However he didn’t, he concluded that he does not even meet the criteria for GAD and concluding that Pistorius did not suffer from a condition that could of impaired his ability to tell right from wrong or act in accordance with that understanding, does not actually benefit Pistorius and in fact is a blow against him.

          I’d also like to add that the psychologist who prepared that report was actually not the one who was appointed by the defence, which is further evidence against the claim that he was biased. In fact he, along with 1 of the 3 psychiatrists on the panel was appointed by the judge to be an impartial an unbiased assessor who was not supposed support the defence’s nor the state’s version of events.

          One more thing, appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot imagine something to be so, doesn’t make it so.

      • Jono

        “There IS evidence of past abuse of GFs and of his friends in general. That testimony simply isn’t being highlighted in the media. It’s not titillating or juicy enough, I suppose.”

        You do realise that the entire trial was televised, right? Well, I’ve actually watched the entire trial and still did not see much evidence at all of control or manipulation. The gun incident at Tasha’s was not even relevant to my post because I was specifically talking about evidence of past abuse in relationships and Darren Fresco was not his girlfriend. Regarding that incident though, recall that Pistorius was a celebrity who was spoken about in the media all the time, so my interpretation of that incident was that he perhaps just didn’t want that incident printed all over newspapers and magazines. So, I’m not sure that’s indicative of manipulation and control. The strongest evidence for that which came out in the trial was basically just 4 SMS exchanges between him and Reeva and that’s what initially got me to think that he was a controlling and jealous boyfriend. However, even that may depend on context. In retrospect, I can’t tell from those messages alone whether they really are indicative of controlling behaviour or just normal arguments between a couple. There will be disagreements in any relationship.

      • julia

        I’m more than a little amazed they did not look at all the incidents of manipulation and abuse…or even just Reeva’s texts, they were very clearly describing this kind behavior. He threatened to shoot someone, slammed a door on a women’s “legs” sending her to the hospital, threaten to “break” the soccer players “legs”, started a fight with the man at the raceway because of his jealousy with Samantha, Samantha’s testimony of his anger, the boat incident they all lied about and covered up, and both gun incidents that had witnesses at the scene…how on earth were these not considered. I was expecting the suicide card, because he’s losing…and needs to have sympathy…ahhh poor oscar right, look what will happen if he doesn’t get counseling…well we can’t send him to jail…can we? I’m disgusted
        That’s exactly where he needs to go…if this guy gets away with this, a true monster is born…(already think he is) but for sure if he walks

    • LazyFair

      I don’t know your age, but feel you are very gullible and naive.

      • Jono

        Nope, not naive, just looking at the facts and evidence and if the question of my age is so important, I’m 34 years old. First of all, unless you consider self a better expert on psychology that psychiatrists who, by the way, have actually studied the subject and received a PhD for it as part of their training, trusting expert opinion over those of laypeople is actually not naive nor is it gullible, it’s basic common sense. Are you saying that I should rather trust your opinion, when you’re probably not a psychologist (though I admit that you may have training in psychology because I don’t know you), over someone who not only is a psychologist but who actually evaluated him? Even if you are a psychologist, you did not have him in the chair, so the opinion of the one who evaluated him still takes precedent. And don’t tell me that it’s invoking an “argument from authority” fallacy, authorities are sometimes wrong, which is why it’s a fallacy, but compared to laypeople who have less or even little knowledge of the subject however, they’re usually right.

        Skepticism is also not being naive. If I believed absolutely that he was not a narcissist or a sociopath, then perhaps that would be a little naive that’s not the case. In fact, after seeing the words “narcissist” and “sociopath” being thrown around haphazardly on the internet, I was always skeptical because the evidence those people claimed seemed weak to me, but I never had a firm opinion one way or the other until now. Really, if there was any disagreement about his assessment, Gerrie Nel, the state prosecutor, would call him to the witness stand in order to cross examine him.

        • LazyFair

          My comment stands.

          • Jono

            So, the opinions of laypeople are more reliable than the experts and if I don’t trust non-experts opinion over an actual expert due to it being less reliable, I’m “naive and gullible”. Got it.

          • Experts determine whether a person was “competent” at the time the offense took place as well as whether they are competent to stand trial. Because Narcissism is a disorder, not a mental illness, Pistorius would be deemed competent regardless that he may be disordered.

            People who have character disorders are very capable of lying to pass lie detector tests. That’s why laying guilt or innocence on testing alone is problematic. Likewise, a short-term study to determine character disorder could be easily undermined by the machinations of the disorder itself. Narcissists are great con artists.

            Anyone who understands the difference between “mental illness” and “character disorder” would understand why the term “suffer” could not possibly apply. They would also understand that whether Pistorius has a character disorder or not should not influence the outcome of the trial, although it is interesting to assess whether he is or is not flawed in this way.

            Character Disorder does not excuse the offender from wrong doing any more than lack of character disorder would render them innocent or guilty. Knowing right from wrong, and choosing to do wrong, is the pivotal criteria in guilt or innocence. And there are strict controls about evidence of his past that can be admitted in the case. Just because such evidence is not part of the trial does not mean it does not exist.

            Unfortunately, guilt or innocence in a court proceeding is not determined by “truth.” It’s determined by “proof.”

          • Jono

            No, listen to me. You have completely and utterly misunderstood my point. I’ve never said that anywhere that his mental state will be a factor in a guilt or innocence verdict, in fact I’ve said the the exact opposite.

            I know what the court order was meant to establish. The court order for Pistorius’ 30 day evaluation was to determine whether or not Pistorius suffered from a mental disorder, mental illness or mental defect which resulted in him, on the night of the incident, not knowing the difference between right and wrong, or being able to behave in accordance with his understanding of the difference between right and wrong, because this is the only way that mental state can be used as a defence that could determine whether he’s guilty or innocent. That’s the competency that you’re talking about, right? All 4 experts, the 3 psychiatrists and the psychologist, have all came back with the conclusion that he was in fact competent to be held criminally liable for shooting Reeva Steenkamp. Therefore, I actually agree with you, the report will not affect the verdict, and any other disorder that he has is actually irrelevant as far as his guilt or innocence is concerned.

            It is also part of standard procedure in evaluations like this that the panel of psychologists and psychiatrists also evaluate potential personally disorders that would make a person more likely to commit such a crime in addition to whether they are culpable. It’s just part of a comprehensive psych assessment. I actually never said that personality disorders could be considered denies for anything. All I said was this: acoording to the psychologist, Dr Scholtz’s report, after the 30 day evaluation, although his conclusion was that Pistorius was competent to be held criminally accountable for his actions, he also found that he was not a narcissist nor a sociopath, just as this article said. My only bone of contention is the suggestion that Dr Scholtz is wrong about Pistorius not being a sociopath, not whether he’s guilty or innocent.

            In future, if you don’t read my post before replying, I will not reply with a detailed explanation like this. I’ll only tell you to re-read my post because there was absolutely nothing in your reply to me that I was even arguing about. I already know everything you’ve said in what is considered relevant in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused and I already agree with you. So, I’m not sure that I understand what you think that you’re arguing about.

          • Jerry Sandusky used a character disorder defense. In particular, he introduced evidence that he had Borderline Personality Disorder. The outcome was a guilty verdict based on the concept that he knew the difference between right and wrong, but choose to do wrong.

            Let’s not confuse testing and analysis that’s designed to determine whether or not the person is and was “competent” with a factual determination on whether or not he has a character disorder, particularly because having a character disorder has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is competent or not. Rather, it’s beyond the scope of the mandate and can only be construed as an off-hand comment with little or no foundation.

            If you know anything about character disorder, you’d know that it can’t be determined by short-term analysis under these conditions. Relying on such an analysis to figure out whether a person is a sociopath is laughable. Some of the hallmarks of a Narcissist and/or Sociopath are their cunning, their highly polished ability to manipulate, and their ability to con. The fact that a professional would proffer a determination on this issue, through this type of analysis, is indicative of their lack of professionalism. And yes, I would seriously question the relevance of his findings just like I’d question a doctor putting his hand on someone’s forehead to determine if he had a brain tumor.

          • Jono

            Look, I really don’t understand what you’re arguing about. Please read my reply before you reply to me. You are not even reading what I’ve written before replying to me. So until you do, I find it useless to keep replying to you

          • From a 30 day analysis, one cannot conclude whether the subject is or is not character disordered. All forms of “cluster B’s” are con artists. They are capable of perpetrating shams for a lifetime. 30 days is nothing to them. And certainly, an analysis to determine if he knows the difference between wrong and right is not conclusive in determining whether he’s character disordered. Your hanging your perception on an imperfect tool, and one that no competent therapist would use.

          • LazyFair

            Plus the fact that therapy or diagnosis in any form — psycological, psychiatrically or behaviorally is only a theory, a perspective, a method and an opinion — never a fact. — for all non-believers — look it up! A part time evaluation can never be comprehensive and one done despite the magnitude of the charges is comical. Three months in-patient I would not scoff at…. this one is not to be believed… nor the docs. After all, they practice in South Africa —- what more do you need to know!

          • Jono

            While an out-patient evaluation can not be as comprehensive as an in-patient, the fact remains that they still did not find evidence of those personality disorders in their evaluation. Also, to say that they are not to be believed simply because they practice in South Africa is pretty ridiculous.

            They did find Pistorius could still be held criminally accountable for the shooting. So let’s leave it at that, okay?

          • LazyFair

            Not arguing… I promise….. There are reasons why he would not wish to be found anything other than sane… any type of insanity would not fit into Oscar’s plans, once he’s acquitted (his thinking and the hope of his defense, certainly not mine). Logical thinking teaches us to question everything — what is the old adage- to not believe everything you hear and only half of what you see… Given they are in a land with high corruption, why would you not suspect something is amiss— really, what sane man would shoot at a door? I’m opting for none. Given that Judge Masipa has already shown weakness (or is it favoritism) in ‘her’ courtroom – by not bringing order when Oscar was out of it, but focusing instead on the over-flow courtroom where food wrappers were left behind – really? Was that really important to this trial in the grand scheme? No, it wasn’t. And given that she recessed (or took a tea break) each time Oscar was overwrought — really? And, given that the judge felt that an in-patient psych eval constituted punishment — really? Read between the lines. Logic tells me to grow suspicious of the proceedings. As an RN, who has worked on a locked psych unit – Med-Psych to be exact, I know- yes, I know, that a 30 day parttime behavioral assessment would not ‘them’ the data they sought – not possible (that would have only been done as an in-patient stay of 3 months or longer). Given that men in South Africa are not prosecuted for their rapes and murders, I am a skeptic of everything South Africa — with good reason. If I left anything out, please feel free to let me know. I read South African news on a regular basis, have since this injustice. My inductive reasoning tells me the probability of corruption in this case and all it’s parts are highly likely.

          • julia

            (((((((Clapping again)))))))

          • julia

            Agreed ((((((Clapping))))))

          • Jono

            The psychiatrists at Weskoppies actually do have tests for malingering (the technical term for faking a disorder) and they use them routinely on anyone referred there for mental observation by a criminal court. Those malingering tests should catch anyone trying to fool the psychiatrists, which is what they’re designed to do, whether they have personality disorders or not. Not to mention that they have extensive experience in dealing with sociopaths.

            Now, if you had actually READ my previous replies, you would know that the tests and interviews that they did to determine whether or not he has any of those personality disorders were not part of the tests done to determine if he was criminally responsible. They were part of a general battery of tests that are done on anyone who gets referred there for mental observation by a criminal court, regardless of what the court specifically mandated them to determine. I’d also like to add that they don’t come to those conclusions by only interviewing him. They also gather information by interviewing his family, friends and other people who know him. In this case, they not only interviewed other members of the Pistorius family but also members of the Myers family as well, who were actually friends with Reeva Steenkamp.

          • Malingering is the attempt to fake a disorder. istorius is not trying to do so. Your take on the correctness of the “no disorder” conclusion is based, in part on your misunderstanding of this term. He is faking that he does NOT, have a disorder, not that he does.

          • Jono

            If was indeed faking being normal then has faking having PTSD or an “adjustment disorder” as claimed in the other report. Those are 2 actual disorders that would of been picked up on in the malingering scale if he had indeed been faking those.

            PS. I replied to you weeks ago with links to the actual report by professor Scholtz but my reply got deleted for some reason. I have no I idea why because that was a link to the newspaper that got permission from the judge to publish it dew to an agreement with Pistorius’ legal team and she amended her order the following Monday.

          • julia

            Lying is a narcissists best talent…..

  • Jerry Sandusky, (Penn State sexual molester,) also used a defense strategy based on Character Disorder. He was convicted despite the belief that, indeed, he was a character disordered individual. The concept of “disorder” is not that it is an illness, but rather, that it is normality for the person in question. It is flawed morality, not a flaw in the thinking process. And because disordered people do, in fact, know the difference between right and wrong, they make a conscious choice to do wrong, and thereby knowingly, convey harm and are accountable for their actions.

    The self-image of a Narcissist is two dimensional. It is a flat reflection coming back at them without the “rounding out” of the third dimension that the world perceives from their behavior. The experts are correct in Pistorius being “insecure,” as are all Narcissists. That’s why they engage in grandiose schemes to protect their image. Not everyone who is insecure, however, is a Narcissist….. just the ones who also lack empathy, remorse and conscience. Pistorius seems to possess all the traits that exemplify Narcissism.

  • BTW, in response to Jono-

    Character Disordered folks don’t “suffer” from their character disorder. It is simply how their brain is wired. Character disordered folks cause extreme hardship and suffering for others, however. In fact, they rarely seek professional help because they believe themselves “supreme.” In their opinions, It’s the rest of us who need “help,” not them.

    When they undergo therapy it is because they are forced to…. either by law enforcement, or by people who have reached the end of their rope with them. If the character disordered person wishes to continue maintaining the relationship, they will make a superficial game of therapy, which generally gives them another outlet to refine their manipulation. It rarely causes a change in their mentality.

    • LazyFair

      They are sly foxes….. Oscar Pistorius has shown his true self, both in court and on the witness stand. In both instances, he showed no respect – to the judge or to Mr. Nel and the outlandish responses that came out of his mouth (and his brain) were not those of an innocent man.

      • Kim David

        OJ Simpson, Drew Peterson, Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, were all narcissistic, jealous & insecure.

    • Jono

      I used the wrong wording. Nonetheless, my point was that it was concluded that Pistorius didn’t have a character disorder.

  • LazyFair

    I’m in awe of this article….. you’ve vividly described what we’ve seen and guessed was the ‘real’ Oscar Pistorius and the results we expected to read about from the psych eval. It’s just crazy to think Oscar Pistorius is not crazy.

  • Dermantology

    It may be that the reason that one part of the findings ring true and one part ring so falsely is that there are two different reports that have come together. A panel of three psychiatrists have submitted one report, and a single psychologist has submitted the other. It’s the latter which claims, contrary to what is known to be true by those who know Oscar Pistorius, that he is not a narcissist, angry, or aggressive.

    OP is, certainly, narcissistic, angry, and aggressive. How, then, can a professional get things so wrong? Being one person’s opinion, it’s possible that the fellow simply was fooled by a con man and his family et al, or, in the small community that is SA, it could be something as common as a personal connection through family, church etc. that results in such a skewed finding.

  • Kim David

    “I have to sell my home to pay off my Lawyers.” (Lying for pity) He sold his $5 Million Dollar Home before The Steenkamps sued him with a Wrongful Death Suit. Such a Coward of a man.

  • None of which obviates his guilt, or is a defense of diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

  • julia

    WOW great article!!!! Man do i wish this information was there with those “experts”
    Anyone that has ever had to deal with a narcissist called it from the start. This guy would NEVER kill himself…just the next manipulation for sympathy . Thank you so much for this article…it’s so frustrating and heartbreaking to watch this happening for Reeva’s family.. Reeva and all the others deserve justice.

    • LazyFair

      You’re probably correct about a suicide attempt — he loves himself too much… and, I also see him as a coward… we already know he’s a liar- can’t believe anything from him or his defense. But, I can also imagine that he’s capable of suicide, A) because he’s stupid, B) he flies off the handle – spur of the moment type of guy, C) he has a flair for the dramatic as already demonstrated in court, and D) ultimate control – isn’t that what suicide really is – insanely manipulating the moment! Do I think he will?– no, I don’t — because his entire life has been protected for him, I suspect he believes he will be saved on judgement day and he may very well be correct (as the world watches in horror!).

      • james

        He is a coward……..

  • Katia

    Thank you, good article! Very good observation on him using suicide for attention. I have a psychology degree, and what also helps me to identify Pistorius as a psychopath is the fact that I have been around them since my childhood, and finally – at 34 – I am not ignoring, but observing red flags very carefully, and he has raised many red flags so far. Just looking at his tense body is a sign #1 – he is not feeling emotions but is carefully watching the environment and reactions around him to be on alert as to what emotion to display next. Simply, a predator on the loose, only now his prey is not falling a victim to his physical violence, in the bathroom, but to his emotional manipulation, in the courtroom (and, obviously, the clinic too)

    • LazyFair

      Thank you for a great comment! IMO his eyes always give off a paranoia- probably goes along with what you’re referring to – while he’s deciding who he’ll be today!

  • Have to agree – NPD definitely should have been included as there seems to be existence of this disorder.

  • Paul Bentley

    Society has become far too focused on the accused,s mindset when he commited the crime.Case is much more simple than that,he kiiled her knowing that “somebody” was in the toilet.That is pre-meditated murder,end of.

    • LazyFair

      You are so correct — just crazy, isn’t it that accused murderers have so much protection. It’s easy for me to see that he intended to kill – he fetched his gun and pulled the trigger. And, I don’t believe for one minute that he thought Reeva was in bed. He’s a liar. They were arguing up to the time he decided she needed a one man firing squad!

  • digiteye

    Very well-written article. It’s a pity that such analytic essays could only be written by those who were harmed by the evil.
    This society focuses on things like HIV, that is one tenth or less prevalent compared to psychopaths like this one.
    And even at times when the psychopath kills (that is just the top of the tip of the iceberg) there is a debate whether the person was really a psycho or not. Even when it is obvious.

    This all is due to the psycho “illiteracy” of this society.

  • The lord Salisbury

    a very intelligent article

  • Pingback: URL()

  • Pingback: My Homepage()