Oh boy. Those answers will take time, but there is an incredible amount of info. On the internet that you can research. All of the full definitions are in the DSM , if you can get a hold of it in the library. If he has a narcissistic personality, or is a "psychopath" which is Anti- Personality Disorder, as many have assumed, then he does not feel or even understand, empathy. He feels no guilt or shame for what he did. He feels " entitled". Yet he knows full well what normal people think because he has been around them all his life. People like this are very good at mimicking normal behavior, and can even adjust their behavior according to the circumstances. This is why people always say, "BUT he is so polite, he was very quiet, never would have guessed, etc. Even their loved ones may not know. Scott Peterson is an excellent example. So while they can pretend to feel guilty, they really don't feel it at all. That is why people often say about a killer, " he looks cold, or he has no remorse, in a courtroom. But, like I said there is a huge amount of sources you may find in the library or on the internet. Some people are fascinated with how the mind works, others see it as an excuse and don't even entertain the idea. I think it helps to explain behavior. But that is certainly not an excuse.
Sure. Or, maybe something like this...
It is only relevant if Rivera has a narcissistic personality disorder or something along those lines. It can even apply to Autism. I have detailed below a more descriptive answer. But yes, these characteristics are what account for the Disorder. It is how a diagnosis is made. There must be a certain amount of behaviors present in order to meet the criteria. Although some experts disagree on certain things, the basic criteria is agreed upon. The answer to your first question is yes, it is a combination of exactly all the things you mentioned. There are many ways to measure ANY diagnosis, it is never just one thing. A combination is necessary, (including observations and any one instrument should never be used to determine a diagnosis. As for personal opinion, it is not quite that but rather the conclusions based on the above things I mentioned. The psychologist then makes a decision on a diagnosis. And then there is this problem: Several psychologists can administer various tests and come up with different results. So in a trial, you need to look for consistency. Look at the Jodi Arias trial, for example. ( what a fiasco) does this answer your questions?
, obsession, and act on fantasySure. Or, maybe something like this...
It's a possibilty; she might have fallen over; sprained an ankle.
I am also thinking this....
I hadn't heard that the car was also seen around her home from any other source. I wonder if that is accurate.Profiler:
Forensic profiler talks motive in the Mollie Tibbetts case
I know!! I have temporarily removed myself from this topic because trying to organize the sequence of events has me confused and is turning my mind into mush. I am a terrible typist and basically a technological moron so I keep making typos and my mind is going faster than I can type. I was hoping someone could come up with a few scenarios, map it out, and we can look at it in an organized way. I am visual, so I think that's why its so hard to see it in my mind!
