Biggest psychopath in history?

Lingua Franca

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There was a programme on a few months ago about Mary Bell who killed two children when she was ten.

See, I don't think she was a psychopath and therefore doesn't fit in this thread. She had a horrific childhood which culminated in what she did, but once she was lifted from her nightmare of a homelife she became a model prisoner, got educated, gor released and started a family. She's gone to great lengths to protect her daughter from her past. She hasn't been in trouble since her release. She was never diagnosed as a psychopath, but a very troubled and disturbed little girl due to being prostituted out (with some degree of S&M and asphyxia) from about the age of four.

There's footage on youtube of another little girl who is a total ball of hate and rage due to horrible incestuous sexual abuse. Watching it, watching her talk coldly about all the pain she's been through, why she tortures animals and why she painfully molests her baby brother you could easily write her off as a pyschopath. She's not, she's just a child who had no chance at being normal. With plenty of love, understanding and therapy she's grown up to become a beautiful person, a paediatric nurse who teaches about attachment disorders and parenting methods.

We don't write children off for a reason, and with good reason.

deadman1972 wrote: »

Yes but my point is you are BORN a psychopath therefore not being willing to give a child a label just because they are a child is an excercise in futility imho, if a child is a psychopath then they should be described as such, i see no reason why the same test would not work on a child as an adult. The psychopath will shine through, if it is not in the child then nothing will show.:D I am not a doctor either lets just sau=y i have expert personal experience so i know what i am talking about:eek:

Aye, I'm sure you do. :rolleyes: Tell me, what's the difference between ordinary personal experience and expert personal experience?

Odysseus

deadman1972 wrote: »

Yes but my point is you are BORN a psychopath therefore not being willing to give a child a label just because they are a child is an excercise in futility imho, if a child is a psychopath then they should be described as such, i see no reason why the same test would not work on a child as an adult. The psychopath will shine through, if it is not in the child then nothing will show.:D I am not a doctor either lets just sau=y i have expert personal experience so i know what i am talking about:eek:

I think part is some along the lines of yes the condition or the predisposition to the disorder is present from brith. However, the condition may not become manifest until adulthood. Additionally, as come of the criteria maybe present in developing adolescents who will not be deemed as psychopaths in later life, that we cannot be accurate in classifing those behaviours/traits as psychopathic indicators in adolescents.

Also as an adolescent is still developing and does not have the same experience of the world as an adult, I'm not sure if it would be valid to use the same tests as used on adults.


The other disorders used in childhood may be valid for your personal experience.

I'm not denfending this by the way, just giving you my understanding of it, and I may not be totally correct in that.

Actually, I seen if I can dig out a paper that explains the issues and conflicts much better than I can.

hearny

Maybe not the biggest psychopath but Oliver Cromwell must get a mention as the biggest c*nt Ireland has ever seen.

Rasheed

Odysseus wrote: »

My understanding of this is that it is quite a controversial concept; yet it is often referred to in movies and the like of CSI and Criminal Minds. Additionally the FBI used to use this concept when training Law Enforcement Officers.

However, it has never been proved as a valid concept, even though it has made its way into the language of forensic studies.

Once again my understanding is that this concept referred to violent offenders or even serial killers not necessarily psychopaths.

I think it needs to be stated again that there is a difference between psychopaths and criminal psychopaths. It is an easy one to highlight but it is often forgotten, so to say it again not all people classified as psychopaths are violent or killers, and not all killers are psychopaths.

Now I am not a forensic psychologist, I do get to work with some very interesting people and people who have committed some very nasty acts. I certainly have noted the presence of McDonalds Triad in some people who have serious nasty offences; so it is present in some people.

However, with saying that, if I was taking a history and these three behaviours came to light, it would raise an eyebrow; and it would certainly suggest a difficult childhood, but after that for me each client has a different story to tell.

From what I understand that triad was just accepted into various theories; however, currently, I think the consensus is that it needs to be research further.

So Rasheed that is my thoughts on it, at this ungodly hour. There are a few forensic psychologists around here; they could certainly add a lot more than I could.

Well thank you very much for your reply!

Yeah, it was Criminal Minds that I heard it first so I read up a biteen on it.

It's a very interesting field and you're dead right to highlight that a person can be a psychopath but not necessarily a violent murderer or that all violent murderers are psychopaths.

I do confuse the two myself, I think media and programmes like the CSIs and Criminal Minds always put psychopaths and homocidal maniacs, hand in hand with no middle ground.

Cienciano

Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) was fairly messed up. This is a bit about when he was caught:

When Sutcliffe was stripped of his clothing at the police station he was wearing a V-neck sweater under his trousers. The sleeves had been pulled over his legs and the V-neck exposed his genital area. The front of the elbows were padded to protect his knees as, presumably, he knelt over his victims' corpses.

jmayo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Just to touch on Hitler again there's evidence to suggest that he was hesitant in implementing the 'final solution.' Heydrich and Goring pushed for it, Hitler had suggested the island of Madagascar as a location to plant members of the Jewish faith.

I suppose writing about your supposed ideology is easier than implementing it.

The scary thing is that the Nazi ideology fostered and gave a home to psychopaths like Mengele, Heydrich, Franz Stangl, Paul Blobel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Adolf Eichmann, etc.

People seem to think all the ideas came form Hitler where as most of them came from his underlings and those trying desperately to curry favour.
The whole idea of the systematic killing of the institutionalized mentally and physically disabled was dreamt up by some doctors.
Eventually it got passed up the chain and got stamp of approval.

A few people mentioned above were instrumental in the final solution.
Goring, Himmler and indeed the West's favourite Nazi Albert Speer have a lot to answer for in the deaths of many thousands if not millions.

Stalin was something else in that he was even willing to kill his own family.
Nobody was out of bounds, he consigned his only son to death and threw relatives into gulags.

The likes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, Pinochet, Mao of course get a dishonourable mention for their deeds.
Were they all psychopaths, plain evil, or just wanted power ?

The scary thing is when some of these people with delusional or psychopathic tendencies actually get political and military control.

Otherwise they might just be oddballs who never make the pages of history.

The above ones immediately spring to mind since we know so much about them, their deeds are fresh in our minds and well documented.
Also with the advent of modern technology and modern military capabilities the dead tolls done on their orders can be even greater than ever possible in history.

Odysseus

Rasheed wrote: »

Well thank you very much for your reply!

Yeah, it was Criminal Minds that I heard it first so I read up a biteen on it.

It's a very interesting field and you're dead right to highlight that a person can be a psychopath but not necessarily a violent murderer or that all violent murderers are psychopaths.

I do confuse the two myself, I think media and programmes like the CSIs and Criminal Minds always put psychopaths and homocidal maniacs, hand in hand with no middle ground.

Yeah, the whole area of forensic psych is quite interesting; if you like it why not get a few core texts in the area. Apart from the like of amazon, you often seem in Hodges, waterstones etc. Expensive though, the last one I picked up was 97e if I remember correctly:eek: Of course the are cheaper ones too

Galwayguy35

Lingua Franca wrote: »

See, I don't think she was a psychopath and therefore doesn't fit in this thread. She had a horrific childhood which culminated in what she did, but once she was lifted from her nightmare of a homelife she became a model prisoner, got educated, gor released and started a family. She's gone to great lengths to protect her daughter from her past. She hasn't been in trouble since her release. She was never diagnosed as a psychopath, but a very troubled and disturbed little girl due to being prostituted out (with some degree of S&M and asphyxia) from about the age of four.

There's footage on youtube of another little girl who is a total ball of hate and rage due to horrible incestuous sexual abuse. Watching it, watching her talk coldly about all the pain she's been through, why she tortures animals and why she painfully molests her baby brother you could easily write her off as a pyschopath. She's not, she's just a child who had no chance at being normal. With plenty of love, understanding and therapy she's grown up to become a beautiful person, a paediatric nurse who teaches about attachment disorders and parenting methods.

We don't write children off for a reason, and with good reason.

Yes I know Mary Bell suffered horrible abuse as a kid, but the fact is that many kids here in Ireland suffered the same at the hands of that scumbag Brendan Smyth and others but didn't kill and mutilate the body of a little boy like Bell did.

Although the girl that was with Bell seems to have got off very lightly considering she was present at the murder, I don't know how much of a part she played in it though.

How can we say that they will never do it again?

Rasheed

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah, the whole area of forensic psych is quite interesting; if you like it why not get a few core texts in the area. Apart from the like of amazon, you often seem in Hodges, waterstones etc. Expensive though, the last one I picked up was 97e if I remember correctly:eek: Of course the are cheaper ones too

Oh right, must have a look in the library to see is there anything that resembles forensic psychology!

I have a psychology book from college hanging round, my friend that did psych nursing used it more than me though. I bought a book there lately, an introduction to counselling by John McLeod, looking forward to reading it!

Lingua Franca

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yes I know Mary Bell suffered horrible abuse as a kid, but the fact is that many kids here in Ireland suffered the same at the hands of that scumbag Brendan Smyth and others but didn't kill and mutilate the body of a little boy like Bell did.

Although the girl that was with Bell seems to have got off very lightly considering she was present at the murder, I don't know how much of a part she played in it though.

How can we say that they will never do it again?

A couple of points: those molested by Brendan Smyth and his ilk most likely had some respite in normal home lives. Mary Bell was prostituted by her drunken prostitute mother. No normality, no joy, no respite so she could learn to be a normal girl. Same with the other little girl I mentioned, she had no joy and no normal home life at all and could easily have done what Mary Bell did had someone not intervened and rescued her.

I'm not trying to excuse what are truly heinous crimes, but we are talking about psychopathy as a disorder and I don't think horribly abused children acting out (ugh, that's such a weak thing to say about their crimes but I don't how else to phrase it) necessarily fit the diagnosis. No doubt there have been some who do but there's certainly precedent for abused children to become abusers and not have any limits. Not all psychopaths are killers and by the same token not all killers are psychopaths.

I can't say that Mary Bell will never do it again but she's kept her nose clean for 32 years now.

I don't think it's fair to just write off horribly abused children as psychopaths for perpetrating abuse. Not when we can intervene and try to rehabilitate them.

Galwayguy35

Lingua Franca wrote: »

A couple of points: those molested by Brendan Smyth and his ilk most likely had some respite in normal home lives. Mary Bell was prostituted by her drunken prostitute mother. No normality, no joy, no respite so she could learn to be a normal girl. Same with the other little girl I mentioned, she had no joy and no normal home life at all and could easily have done what Mary Bell did had someone not intervened and rescued her.

I'm not trying to excuse what are truly heinous crimes, but we are talking about psychopathy as a disorder and I don't think horribly abused children acting out (ugh, that's such a weak thing to say about their crimes but I don't how else to phrase it) necessarily fit the diagnosis. No doubt there have been some who do but there's certainly precedent for abused children to become abusers and not have any limits. Not all psychopaths are killers and by the same token not all killers are psychopaths.

I can't say that Mary Bell will never do it again but she's kept her nose clean for 32 years now.

I don't think it's fair to just write off horribly abused children as psychopaths for perpetrating abuse. Not when we can intervene and try to rehabilitate them.

Ok, I get what you are saying, she had a horrible start to life, but how can we explain the Jamie Bulger case then?

Two boys from normal homes who killed a toddler when they were only 10 years old?

I remember the case well at the time (hard to believe it's 20 years ago) and no reason was given to the best of my knowledge as to why they did it.

Lingua Franca

I can't. That's why I picked Mary Bell out of your post. I felt a little sorry for her when I learned of what she'd gone through.

I know one of the Bulger murderers had a violent home life with drunk parents and loads of rough brothers hardening each other up with beatings, the other had a normal, loving home life, and that only one of them reoffended. I wonder which one? I'll look it up.

Edit: Ok, I checked it out.

Robert Thompson was the one with violent alcoholic parents and violent brothers. He showed no remorse at the trial and James Bulger's mum tried to have him certified as a psychopath. To my knowledge, he has not reoffended.

Jon Venables was the one from the less violent background, although I'm reading that his older brother and younger sister have disabilities and his parents relationship was on again/off again . He appeared to be the instigator. He showed a lot of remorse and guilt at trial. He's the one currently locked up indefinitely again.

There's still no reason for any of their actions. I wonder if they even know what was going through their heads and why they did what they did? Was it rage, power?

In Mary Bell's case she wouldn't have thought strangling was fatal or even abnormal since it had been happening to her since a young age. The post mortem mutilation must have been a power issue for her.

Ugh, lovely conversation to be having first thing in the am!

MagicSean

deadman1972 wrote: »

Yes but my point is you are BORN a psychopath therefore not being willing to give a child a label just because they are a child is an excercise in futility imho, if a child is a psychopath then they should be described as such, i see no reason why the same test would not work on a child as an adult. The psychopath will shine through, if it is not in the child then nothing will show.:D I am not a doctor either lets just sau=y i have expert personal experience so i know what i am talking about:eek:

They are not labeled a psycopath because their brain has not yet developed to a degree where a proper diagnosis can be made.

MagicSean

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't. That's why I picked Mary Bell out of your post. I felt a little sorry for her when I learned of what she'd gone through.

I know one of the Bulger murderers had a violent home life with drunk parents and loads of rough brothers hardening each other up with beatings, the other had a normal, loving home life, and that only one of them reoffended. I wonder which one? I'll look it up.

Edit: Ok, I checked it out.

Robert Thompson was the one with violent alcoholic parents and violent brothers. He showed no remorse at the trial and James Bulger's mum tried to have him certified as a psychopath. To my knowledge, he has not reoffended.

Jon Venables was the one from the less violent background, although I'm reading that his older brother and younger sister have disabilities and his parents relationship was on again/off again . He appeared to be the instigator. He showed a lot of remorse and guilt at trial. He's the one currently locked up indefinitely again.

There's still no reason for any of their actions. I wonder if they even know what was going through their heads and why they did what they did? Was it rage, power?

In Mary Bell's case she wouldn't have thought strangling was fatal or even abnormal since it had been happening to her since a young age. The post mortem mutilation must have been a power issue for her.

Ugh, lovely conversation to be having first thing in the am!

People dont need a reason to be depraved. I would consider acts of depravity to be common enough in Ireland yet very few would have any identifiable reason.

Odysseus

MagicSean wrote: »

People dont need a reason to be depraved. I would consider acts of depravity to be common enough in Ireland yet very few would have any identifiable reason.

My experience would differ on that, if you look and of course have access to the information you will find reasons. Whether they are the only reasons or the ultimate reasons, well how can you say either way?

Brain Stroking

deadman1972 wrote: »

children not being classified as psychopaths is a legal thing, because then they would have to be tried as adults and not minors,psychopath is something you are born with so it is entirely possible to be a child and a psychopath

It isnt illegal to be a psychpath.

dsmythy

Dravokivich wrote: »

NO, the very of idea of history is from written records. you mean pre-history, which is not what the thread is about.

I say plenty of downright swines got away anonymously thanks to vampires and werewolves getting the blame for several killing sprees.

Ally Dick

Ed Gein and his lampshades made of skin

deadman1972

FFS brain read what i said and think about context etc before you comment;)

Capt'n Midnight

keithclancy wrote: »

Khan Noonien Singh was a complete Psycho.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/quotes

Mr. Spock: From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world, from Asia through the Middle East.
Dr. McCoy: The last of the tyrants to be overthrown.
Scott: I must confess, gentlemen. I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one.
Capt. Kirk: He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous. They were supermen in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring.
Mr. Spock: Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is...
Capt. Kirk: Mr. Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless.
Scott: There were no massacres under his rule.
Mr. Spock: And as little freedom.
Dr. McCoy: No wars until he was attacked.

EoghanIRL

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Who in your opinion was the worst human being to ever walk this planet regardless of any innate mental health problems. I was thinking Hitler, what makes it even worse for him was that he wasn't suffering from psychotic tendencies, he was born perfectly normal. Another person I think of is Thug Behram, who was responsible for 931 murders in India in the 19th century, his name is the origin of the word thug in our language.

Hitler was just misunderstood , he just wanted the German economy to prosper and well ehm persecute the Jews .

MarkHitide

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Hitler was just misunderstood , he just wanted the German economy to prosper and well ehm kill the Jews and steal their teeth.

Fyp.

Aquarius34

The biggest Psychopath in history would be the man who control's HIS-story.

Aquarius34

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Hitler was just misunderstood , he just wanted the German economy to prosper and well ehm persecute the Jews .

Hitler was JUST not as bad as what people made him out to be. People are so f***king naive and believe anything a history book will tell them.

Hitler did good and bad things. He had a lot of good intentions too. I am not supporting him, I am not a fan of him and I don't condone all of the actions he followed up on. But I can tell you that most dictator's are just front men for the real psychopaths who are behind the veil. For example for Hitler to come to power, he needed backing, He need finance and he needed powerful people and all other kind of support behind him to get where he needed to be. As soon as hes in power he has people all around him manipulating him, advising him, pecking him and influencing all his decisions. It's basic common knowledge to anyone who has been given a position of power.

As soon as he became outdated, they just threw him out like a rotten corpse. That's the nature of how the elite work. You may be given power, but you are used and abused as well.

Capt'n Midnight

jmayo wrote: »

The scary thing is that the Nazi ideology fostered and gave a home to psychopaths

Look at the history of Germany's colonies, it wasn't something new.

The Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania is now a wildlife reserve because it was depopulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide - first Genocide of the 20th century, some of those involved were also involved in the WWII genocide.

Treatment of the Pacific Islanders was also pretty bad.