Following up from my earlier post regarding my Schizoaffective/Bi-Polar theory with some additional points of discussion thrown in to bounce around:
Delusional (grandiose thinking, alternate identities/pseudonyms), paranoid (stalkers), denial about his mental health in his rant about his mother leaving him in a mental ward
(I couldn't find a quick link to this blog post), disorganized thoughts (writing style, plagiarism compensates), affective flattening, anhedonia (sexual & social - no close friends or family have been identified for well over a year or more, negative escort reviews - necessary to go to extremes in an attempt to achieve pleasure), notes the use of Risperdal in a post, reporter inquired about his mental health and lack of eye blinking after his Karla H. interview in 2007; stated on Dr. Drew (June 2012) that he was told by LM's agent that "he is fine, just needs his medication".
_________________________________________________
I stumbled across an interview with E. Fuller Torrey (considered to be one of the world's authorities on schizophrenia). I wonder if this might be why LM hates cats so much. Perhaps he was diagnosed and true to form refused to believe it but researched it. Here is the article -
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Schizovirus.html
________________________________________________________
I think the use of the word OR will figure prominently in this case:
The defence of mental disorder is codified in section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada which states, in part:
16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission
or of knowing that it was wrong.
To establish a claim of mental disorder the party raising the issue must show on a balance of probabilities first that the person who committed the act was suffering from a "disease of the mind", and second, that at the time of the offence they were either 1) unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or 2) did not know it was "wrong".
The meaning of the word "wrong" was determined in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. which held that "wrong" was NOT restricted to "legally wrong" but to "morally wrong" as well.
Ok... feel free to discuss at your leisure. I have to pop off-line for a bit to work with & love on my GSD for awhile.
