I heard someone was having a hard time understanding my point and I have copied my full quote above to reiterate.
What I have written here is my opinion of what I've read in this forum about Z and also from what his siblings say about him in newsstories. I had carefully worded my opinion. I used the word "likely" a paranoid schizophrenic. I did NOT say it was 100% certain nor did I diagnose him as one.
It should be readily apparent that neither I nor anyone else can diagnose anyone without physically interviewing them face-to-face.
I stand by unequivocally with everything I've said here. I have extensive clinical experience in this area.
We should know more when LE release more facts about Z. Hopefully Z had been seen by physicians and/or psychiatrists and they should have his medical records on his mental illness.
Here is the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia:
...............
Diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia
A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) for the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):
delusions
hallucinations
disorganised speech (for example frequent derailment or incoherence)
grossly disorganised or catatonic behaviour
negative symptoms, that is,, affective flattening, alogia, or avolition
Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the persons behaviour or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.
B. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).
C. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (that is, active-phase symptoms) and may include prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (for example, odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).
D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features have been ruled out because either (1) no Major Depressive, Manic, or Mixed Episodes have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.
E. Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (for example, a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
F. Relationship to a Pervasive Developmental Disorder: If there is a history of Autistic Disorder or another Pervasive Developmental Disorder, the additional diagnosis of Schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are present for at least a month (or less if successfully treated).[46]
................
You are making ALOT of assumption on which you are basing a theoretical diagnosis, on a man, based solely on what media has reported, and your own assumption that he is indeed guilty. You even stated "The killer is Ziya"
I personally think it is dangerous to label someone based on such generalized media and family statements, and on assuming guilt before it is proven.
In my opinion a huge basis of fitting him into this criteria would require him to be guilty of the crime, and assuming that his motivation for the crime was based in delusion paranoia that Sarai was out to do him harm. That in my opinion is a lot of speculation, and I personally don't feel like it is right to first assume guilt, and then to apply diagnostic criteria as his motive. Especially since we do not even know he is guilty, so maybe he doesn't even need a motive.
I think we just need to be really careful out of respect for an individual who is innocent until proven guilty.
I too have expertise in psychology, and In my humble opinion I believe such assessment of Z is premature.
