I am still a little bit confused. There are those books (well technically CDs nowadays), like ICD, ECD, DSM. Thousands of experts have worked to compile them, to define symptom catalogs, diagnosis guides and so on. All of them agreed, to make a diagnosis for psychosis, they need to observe the patient tow to three days under clinical conditions, maybe even have to do additional research, interview the family for example. Because as Montjoy said, to some level the function still. even it's a very basic level.
<modsnip> But then, when I notice this discrepancy a little too loud, that is called rude, so ... err ... now what?
They are not experts at diagnosing someone from just a video with no audio and no other surroundings.
To say that someone is "probably" sleepwalking/having a psychotic episode/on drugs, is the modern day equivalent to what you just said. Scientific knowledge is about forming hypotheses which can be tested.
<modnsip>
I keep hearing the word "diagnosis" being used. But no one here is diagnosing anyone. Mental health diagnoses are serious, official determinations that can have some serious legal and other effects. For example, if someone is diagnosed as mentally ill, they may never be able to obtain certain jobs like FBI or CIA positions. Also, certain diagnoses allow for 72 hour holds of a person against their will. A mental health diagnosis can result in the loss of custody of a child, especially if a parent is not following treatment protocols. Certain mental health diagnoses can result in conservatorships, like what happened to Brittany Spears.
So yes, there are rigorous protocols that are undergone to officially diagnose someone.
But that's simply not what is happening here. And so those protocols would not apply here.
Instead, what's happening is experts are giving expert opinions based on their knowledge base, their education, their specific, expert experience.
You know when a law enforcement mental health team responds to a call about bizarre, out of control or dangerous behavior, they have the power to place the subject in custody and to physically transport them to a hospital, against their will. They base that decision on a deductive hypothesis resulting from years of experience, among other things. They are not diagnosing the subject but they are assessing him or her and they do it usually within half an hour or so.
Also, in my practice, I read a lot of child custody evaluations that involve psychological assessments of both parents. The parties undergo testing and each speaks to the evaluator for no more than a couple hours, giving their history, etc. A psych assessment is issued. It is not a diagnosis. But it is a hypothesis and decisions by a judge regarding custody are based on those hypotheses.
Finally, in some professions, people have to come to rapid decisions about things and must act accordingly. Thus, an ER doctor may have a pretty good indication that a certain medical phenomena is occurring and sometimes that quick determination results in emergency surgery or other emergency treatments. They likely have not been able to officially diagnose a patient but they know they have to act fast possibly to save a life. So they do.
The point is, being able to come to a conclusion or to form an opinion, expert or otherwise, is not rendered impossible if the person coming to that conclusion or forming that opinion has not tested their hypothesis via certain scientific protocols. And often, actual, professional decisions and conclusions are arrived at without having done so, just based on experience and gut alone.
Several professionals have come to the same conclusion in this case. Again, not a DSM diagnosis, but a conclusion based on what they are seeing and how it compares to what they have experienced and observed professionally. I'm confused by the outright anger towards these professionals and the attitude that a lay person would know more than they or that the basis for their conclusion is faulty.
This is where I read about the body being found nude, and it's not a Chinese video. However, this is not a direct quote from LE.
"KNX 1070′s Claudia Peschiutta reports guests were disturbed to learn Lam’s nude body was found inside of one of four large water tanks."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-downtown-la-hotel/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Yes, but Qrious was saying that it first came from the Chinese media, not LE and that since then, reports like the one you linked to have echoed it with no supporting evidence from LE or any witness. So some are wondering if that was actually the case.
I am sorry. Where does anyone address how EL got from the hotel to the water tank when a police dog found no trace of her? Did I miss that?
What that would have to do with whether or not Elisa was psychotic in the video is beyond me. She could have been wandering the streets in a psychotic haze before returning and climbing to the roof. She could have been ensconced in some person's room for days before being killed or before leaving to go up to the roof.
And Elisa got on that roof and into a water tank one way or the other. Whether carried there or climbing there on her own, a search dog could have picked up her scent.
But, the dog could have made a mistake or the handler may not have interpreted the dog's signals correctly. That happens:
"K9 Reliability
The dog must be trained, certified and reliable. The dog does not have to be 100% accurate or perfect. The court has recognized the fact that “false positives” occur and dogs can be as low as 62% accurate."
http://www.asctk9.org/id55.html
There has already been discussion and links about search dogs on these threads. We don;t know if the dog alerted and the handler misread the signs or if the dog failed to alert because it was having an off day.
It is ironic to me that the professional mental health experts are being equated with witch hunters for having an expert opinion in the absence of the ability to make an official diagnosis, yet we are supposed to accept that search and rescue dogs are infallible.
I'm seeing a confusing lack of logic here that is creating circular arguments, a repetition of accusations and questions that are repeatedly answered and then ignored as if they were never discussed and then the accusation that the experts are "ignoring the evidence."
With all due respect, I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with one another, even experts. But ignoring what others have to say and then accusing them of not having said it or of saying something totally different, seems unproductive to me.