Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Conspiracies to kill JFK & RFK

[William Kelly]

I think Bobby, Jr. does enough, and he speaks well for himself and should be proud of what he's acomplished and what he's doing:

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/where-he-stands/

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eodyD...;cd=6&gl=us

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-ken...he-_b_6396.html

http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=Robert_Kennedy_Jr

http://www.riverkeeper.org/our_bio_rkennedy.php

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think Bobby, Jr. does enough, and he speaks well for himself and should be proud of what he's accomplished and what he's doing:

Thank you Mr. Kelly, but I fear it is a waste of time pointing this out, because some posters on this thread have their heads so far .... they just won't get it. Their idea of contributing to this homicide inquiry is to bitch about the victim's family.

Ms Hansen complains

However, like others here I also find their silence and complete aversion to any mention of the deaths and investigations rather odd.

and Mr. Lemkin writes

The strangeness of the 'Kennedy Silence' is odd indeed,

yet the very first post on this thread proves they are both talking through the same part of their anatomy where their heads are stuck:

Bobby Kennedy Jr. told the News that while he suspects the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, may have been a conspiracy, he has "never seen particularly compelling evidence" that was the case in his father's death.

I suppose the Kennedy-haters will now say Bobby is lying.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

I agree Don, and it would be great if they did.

Such an action would put the mainstream media in a very awkward position.

In that case you guys don't know the mainstream media very well. The mainstream media treats Coretta Scott King and members of her family as pitiable Looney Tunes ever since they got involved in re-opening the MLK case.

You think they couldn't make (what is left of) the Kennedy family look like Looney Tunes also?

Just look at the insults thrown at the Kennedy family by the amateurs on this thread, then imagine that amplified times 1 Million by PROFESSIONAL character assassins.

There are sound legal, moral and practical reasons why the family should stay clear of this subject (the JFK & RFK assassinations) given the present chaotic state of the inquiry.

Yes, I realise that the Kennedys would whip up a media frenzy and find themselves in the maelstrom, but you never know---they might garner surprisingly strong support.

It should be remembered that the credibility of the mainstream media has been greatly eroded in recent years. Their strong support for war in Iraq--on the back of a flimsy pretext-- has not been forgotten. And there's the blogosphere, where such dubious concepts as the war on terror and the war on drugs are subject to critical analysis, not the blind dogmatic adherence the MSM demands.

Of course, the Kennedys are under no obligation to call for a new investigation. They don't owe America a bloody thing. However, the notion that the Kennedys--if they spoke out collectively--would be subjected to millions of insults by the MSM and should therefore never consider such an action is repugnant, frankly.

Nobody elected the MSM, but they have established the culture of fear which presides over the populations of Western countries. It's evil.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

However, the notion that the Kennedys--if they spoke out collectively--would be subjected to millions of insults by the MSM and should therefore never consider such an action is repugnant, frankly.

I never said NEVER. I said in "the current chaotic situation" that the inquiry is postured.

[Mark Stapleton]

However, the notion that the Kennedys--if they spoke out collectively--would be subjected to millions of insults by the MSM and should therefore never consider such an action is repugnant, frankly.

I never said NEVER. I said in "the current chaotic situation" that the inquiry is postured.

Fair enough. My mistake. I'm looking at this as more of a general discussion than an adversarial debate.

One wonders if the 'current chaotic situation' will ever cease to be chaotic.

It's a wildly optimistic proposition, but I'm hoping Barack Obama might be favorably disposed towards more than a passing glance at the JFK and RFK issues (of course, he'll have a multitude of more pressing matters to address). Perhaps those in the Kennedy clan who are still curious may eventually take their concerns to him.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[William Kelly]

However, the notion that the Kennedys--if they spoke out collectively--would be subjected to millions of insults by the MSM and should therefore never consider such an action is repugnant, frankly.

I never said NEVER. I said in "the current chaotic situation" that the inquiry is postured.

Fair enough. My mistake. I'm looking at this as more of a general discussion than an adversarial debate.

One wonders if the 'current chaotic situation' will ever cease to be chaotic.

It's a wildly optimistic proposition, but I'm hoping Barack Obama might be favorably disposed towards more than a passing glance at the JFK and RFK issues (of course, he'll have a multitude of more pressing matters to address). Perhaps those in the Kennedy clan who are still curious may eventually take their concerns to him.

Of course it is ludicurous to think that Ted Kennedy, RFK, Jr. and Caroline even talk about the assassinations, or can agree on anything, as they certainly didn't agree on who should be president.

Nor would they ever seek new investigations into the murders. In fact, why should anyone seek yet another investigation as every one has thus far failed.

Freeing the files and the JFK Act is totally different ball game however.

What is their opinions on releasing the assassination records, the JFK Act and those records destroyed, missing and illegally withheld?

It would be more appropriate to make the JFK Act Oversigt Hearings a campaign issue, and asking them reasonable questions about releasing the remaining government records releated to the assassination of the President and other government records that should be public (all Congressional Records are secret and not FOIA).

Now that's something that they should be able to agree on.

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What is their opinions on releasing the assassination records, the JFK Act and those records destroyed, missing and illegally withheld?

BK

Based on RFK Junior’s comments to the Daily News (quoted at the beginning of this thread), there is no reason to expect them to oppose the release of assassination records, or to oppose further inquiry generally.

Longtime JFK researchers will recall that when Ted Kennedy voted to amend FOIA back in the late sixties/early seventies, he made it clear in the Senate record that he was doing so in order to overturn a court ruling that denied Harold Weisberg access to assassination records. Weisberg has written about this in one of his books. So it is NOTHING NEW or even very NEWSWORTHY for the Kennedys to support inquiry into the assassinations. They have never opposed it.

But to ask them to get actively involved in some campaign relating to these murders is to go beyond the bounds of moral propriety.

The duty to investigate and resolve these murders is not one that falls on the family of the victims, no matter what the Kennedy-bashing buck-passers on this forum may want you to believe.

[Mark Stapleton]

However, the notion that the Kennedys--if they spoke out collectively--would be subjected to millions of insults by the MSM and should therefore never consider such an action is repugnant, frankly.

I never said NEVER. I said in "the current chaotic situation" that the inquiry is postured.

Fair enough. My mistake. I'm looking at this as more of a general discussion than an adversarial debate.

One wonders if the 'current chaotic situation' will ever cease to be chaotic.

It's a wildly optimistic proposition, but I'm hoping Barack Obama might be favorably disposed towards more than a passing glance at the JFK and RFK issues (of course, he'll have a multitude of more pressing matters to address). Perhaps those in the Kennedy clan who are still curious may eventually take their concerns to him.

Of course it is ludicurous to think that Ted Kennedy, RFK, Jr. and Caroline even talk about the assassinations, or can agree on anything, as they certainly didn't agree on who should be president.

Nor would they ever seek new investigations into the murders. In fact, why should anyone seek yet another investigation as every one has thus far failed.

Freeing the files and the JFK Act is totally different ball game however.

What is their opinions on releasing the assassination records, the JFK Act and those records destroyed, missing and illegally withheld?

It would be more appropriate to make the JFK Act Oversigt Hearings a campaign issue, and asking them reasonable questions about releasing the remaining government records releated to the assassination of the President and other government records that should be public (all Congressional Records are secret and not FOIA).

Now that's something that they should be able to agree on.

BK

Wouldn't the release of the missing assassination records result in a new investigation anyway?

[Len Colby]

Yes, Sirhan fired his gun, but there's a question of how much a hypnotically programmed patsy can be considered guilty, when his handlers are not even pursued. (How different would a hypnotically programmed state be from insanity?) You can lock such a person up for life like Sirhan (who says he doesn't even remember the crime), but is it right? Why is John Hinckley free, but Sirhan is not? Because Sirhan isn't "white" and from a well-to-do family?

Palle Hardrup killed two bank employees during a robbery in 1951, and was judged by the court to have been hypnotically programmed at the time.

Dr Colin Ross comments:

(Hardrup's) story proves that Manchurian Candidates can in fact be created, be programmed to commit crimes, and be amnesic for those crimes.

.....

Using different vocabulary consistent with Danish terminology at the time, the jury found that Palle Hardrup had multiple personality, and concluded that the multiple personality had been created deliberately by his programmer and handler, Bjorn Neilsen. The verdict was appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld it in a decision rendered on November 18, 1955.

.....

In their report of February 17, 1954, the (Danish) Medico Legal Council, also called the Board of Forensic Medicine, wrote that "even though the actual symptoms of the mental disorder now seem to have disappeared, Hardrup cannot be regarded as cured. The profound split in his personality, which has been established, will certainly only slowly be straightened out." This analysis was reconfirmed by the Medico Legal Council in its final report of May 3, 1957.

The jury found Hardrup guilty on all charges but not responsible for his actions on account of insanity. The man who transformed Palle Hardrup into an amnesiac bank robber, Bjorn Neilsen, was found guilty of robbery, attempted robbery, and manslaughter, even though he was not physically present at any of the crimes. The jury found that Neilsen had planned and instigated the crimes and had compelled Hardrup to carry them out through various forms of influence including hypnosis. Neilsen was sentenced to life imprisonment.

(p184-5, The CIA Doctors, Ross)

“He references the case of Bjorn Nielsen who purportedly hypnotized Palle Hardrup to commit murder in 1951. He uses this case as a proven example of how someone can hypnotize another to commit murder. What O’Sullivan does not do, however, is inform his readers that Hardrup confessed to making everything up in 1972 in an interview with Soren Petersen of the Danish newspaper BT.”

Mel Ayton in his June 15, 2008 review of Shane O'Sullivan's Who Killed Bobby? Though Ayton did not provide a citation or date O'Sullivan did not dispute this in his reply.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/51418.html

...it is true that we had a reporter at B.T. called Søren A. Pedersen in 1972…..but he left the newspaper many, many years ago, and is not a journalist anymore. I worked with him for many years.

At this moment I can not find a copy of the claimed interview as our newspaper is in middle of a big mowing from one house to another, and all files etc.etc. are stored away in some cellars somewhere. And a lot has – terrible enough—been thrown out—as everything now is only filed in the electronic -systems.

Yes it is also true that Palle Hardup after his release in 1966 claimed that his confession was a lie, and that he acted by himself when he robbed the bank. Hardrup changed his name after his release in 1966,and took up a job as a nursing-assistant. Bjørn Schouw Nielsen who was found guilty for hypnotising Hardup was also released in 1966.. He opened a hypnotic clinic. But took his own life in in 1974.

Bjørn Westergaard from the newspaper BT in an e-mail to me, July 28, 2008 (Yes, this morning).

"On Christmas 1966 Palle Hardrup was released and a half year later Bjorn Schouw Nielsen also obtained his freedom. Palle Hardrup, later claimed that his confession was a lie and that he acted on his own initiative in the killings, changed his name and accepted a job as sygehjælper. Bjørn Schouw Nielsen åbnede en hypnoseklinik. In 1974, he took his own life."

Corrected Google translation of an article on the website of a Danish TV station May 27, 2008. Westergaard provide a link to it in his e-mail. There is a link to the original article.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...sl=da&tl=en

[Len Colby]

Dr Colin Ross, an expert on dissociative states who's performed years of original archival research into MK-ULTRA luminaries such as Estabrooks, West & Orne, states the following regarding the book, published in 1958, about the Hardrup ("murder by hypnosis") case:

"Antisocial or Criminal Acts and Hypnosis: A Case Study" could be used as a training manual for Manchurian Candidate programs.

(p184, Ross, The CIA Doctors, 2006)

Absolute truth about the Hardrup case is probably unknowable in 2008.

It's unknowable in 2008 but was knowable 2006 when Ross wrote his book?

Hardrup confessed. The jury, the court, and a medico-legal tribunal found it was a case of murder by hypnosis.

I readily admit to know little about the case but you seem to be "double dipping" presumably the segment of the court that "found it was a case of murder by hypnosis." was the jury. From what little I’ve read Hardrup convinced 2 shrinks who convinced the jury. I haven’t seen previous reference to a “medico-legal tribunal”.

Sociopaths conning shrinks is not that unusual. Ed Kemper killed his grandparents when he was 15 and was sent to a hospital for the criminally insane. He won the trust of head doctor to the point that he made Kemper his assistant. Based on what he learned he convinced the doctors there “he would be safe to release upon his 21st birthday” {December 1969}(pg 2). He soon began planning and preparing to murder young women and picked up hitchhikers but apparently it took him a few years to build up his nerve. He is known to have killed two teenagers in May 1972 and Aiko Koo a college student a few months later. I won’t go into all the graphic details but he had sex with and dismembered the bodies.

“The day after he killed Aiko Koo, Kemper went before a panel of psychiatrists as a follow-up requirement for parole. He'd done well in school, had tried finding a job, and as far as anyone knew, he had stayed out of trouble. He knew what they wanted to hear and he put on his best act. The first doctor talked with him for a while and indicated that he saw no reason to consider Kemper a danger to anyone. The second one actually used the words "normal" and "safe," according to Cheney. Both recommended the sealing of his juvenile records as a way to help him to become a better citizen. Yet even as the two psychiatrists congratulated themselves on being part of a system that had rehabilitated a child killer, Kemper delighted in his secret. Damio writes that not only had killed a girl the day before the analysis, but he had her head in the trunk of his car outside, which Kemper disputes.

Once again, he was in the game. He had succeeded at convincing the learned professionals that he was something other than he really was, and they had wrongly inferred that he was "no longer a danger." The judge did not agree, but had no grounds to deny the request to seal the records. Thus, eight years after he had killed his grandparents, Kemper gained his freedom. As he drove away with a clean bill of mental health, he felt pleased. Now he was free to continue with his experiments. He found a place to bury Koo's head and hands above Boulder Creek, and there they remained undiscovered until the following May.” (pg. 9)

He killed (at least) five more women all of whom he dismembered including his mother and her best friend before turning himself in apparently because he was upset that he didn’t hear about the latter two crimes on the radio (pg. 11).

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_...hildhood_2.html

Later, Hardrup claimed he made it all up.

Which puts the theory he acted under hypnosis in doubt

In the same year, Hardrup's presumed controller, Nielsen, was released from prison and opened a hypnosis clinic.

Which doesn’t tell us if he was a talented hypnotist or if he had many clients. The case presumably garnered him publicity

Before committing suicide a few years later.

Let’s see a Nazi collaborator who probably would have been an outcast anyway in liberal Demark spends 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit after being released he is friendless and unable to make a decent living and decides to end it all. How suspicious! (Yes the 2nd part is speculative)

Ross' clinical opinion that the medical study of Hardrup's case could be "used a training manual for Manchurian Candidate programs" stands, regardless of all this.

Most curious, is it your position that even if “the medical study of Hardrup's case” and Ross’s evaluation of it were based on a false premise both or at least the latter still “stands”? Lets imagine Kemper didn't kill his mom and evaded detection for many years. In the interim the shrink from the nutbin writes a study about his "cure", would another psychiatrist's clinical opinion based on that study be valid?

[Len Colby]

To make a long story short you can't directly reply to my points so resort to barely relevant ones, slip in some personal attacks and irelevant strawmen, and then complain about my tactics

However, at its core are actual murders, and a man acknowledged by all parties to have been a highly proficient hypnotist

Please provide a citation for this claim.

(with probable neo-Nazi leanings).

Make known Nazi leanings since he and his supposed victim were arrested for collaborating during the war. I’m not sure of the relevance of this though are pro-Nazi Danes better hypnotists than the rest of their countrymen?

The medical case study, "Antisocial or Criminal Acts and Hypnosis: A Case Study", presented the technical and clinical case for using hypnosis (perhaps enhanced with narcotics) to create the mindset in an individual in which he or she could be persuaded to commit "antisocial or criminal acts" all the way up to murder.

It would be nice if you could actually cite some of the relevant passages. If it was based on a false premise than it isn’t of much use.

As such, Ross states that it "could be used as a training manual for Manchurian Candidate programs". That statement stands - regardless of what may or may not have happened in the Hardrup case.

Rubbish a case study based on a subject who, unknown to the authors, faked his symptoms is about as useless as leaky condom. Any evaluation of that study which didn’t take the fraud into account is just as worthless.

Hardrup’s retraction seriously undermines the theory he acted under hypnosis and any studies based on the assumption he was are invalid if that was the case, as are any conclusions based on those studies no matter how well qualified the people who made them. I imagine the shrinks whose area of specialty was the criminally insane were just as if not better qualified to evaluate Ed Kemper and they had direct contact with him. That didn’t stop them from being completely wrong about him.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Len Colby

[Mark Stapleton]

I think Sirhan was a programmed killer for sure.

It's hard to understand what Len's carrying on about. Then again..............

[Len Colby]

With regard to post #53.

Re: the request for citation.

Hardrup was found guilty of murder and bank robbery on 17 July 1954. The murder and robbery of two bank employees had taken place on 29 March 1951. The verdict was appealed to the (Danish) Supreme Court which upheld it on 18 November 1955. The case also went to the (Danish) Special Court of Appeal, where the initial jury decision was upheld on 29 June 1957.

I don't have access to Danish legal records. Equally, I don't think anyone is seriously asserting that the murders didn't take place nor that Hardrup was found to have committed them (although his state of mind at the time was of course the issue).

No, no one is disputing this so I have no idea why you are going over it.

"(although his state of mind at the time was of course the issue)."

That is the only issue

Using different vocabulary consistent with Danish terminology at the time, the jury found that Palle Hardrup had multiple personality, and concluded that the multiple personality had been created deliberately by his programmer and handler, Bjorn Neilsen.

No one disputes this either

"The verdict was appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld it in a decision rendered on November 18, 1955."

For this to be relevant we would have to know which conviction was upheld (Hardrup’s or Neilsen’s) and what the question under appeal was. In the US the Supreme Court does not review questions of fact.

In their report of February 17, 1954, the (Danish) Medico Legal Council, also called the Board of Forensic Medicine, wrote that "even though the actual symptoms of the mental disorder now seem to have disappeared, Hardrup cannot be regarded as cured. The profound split in his personality, which has been established, will certainly only slowly be straightened out." This analysis was reconfirmed by the Medico Legal Council in its final report of May 3, 1957.

None of the above indicates they found he was acting under hypnosis.

The jury found Hardrup guilty on all charges but not responsible for his actions on account of insanity. The man who transformed Palle Hardrup into an amnesiac bank robber, Bjorn Neilsen, was found guilty of robbery, attempted robbery, and manslaughter, even though he was not physically present at any of the crimes. The jury found that Neilsen had planned and instigated the crimes and had compelled Hardrup to carry them out through various forms of influence including hypnosis. Neilsen was sentenced to life imprisonment.

(p184-5, The CIA Doctors, Ross)

I’m not disputing that the jury reached this conclusion. Did Ross inform his readers that Hardrup retracted his claim to have acted under hypnosis? If so you should have mentioned this in your posts, if not he either knew this and was intellectually dishonest or didn’t and didn’t do good research.

Neilsen was a career criminal who claimed to have studied hypnosis at the Society for Psychical Research.

I asked you for a citation for your claim that Neilsen was “a man acknowledged by all parties to have been a highly proficient hypnotist” and the only thing you can produce along those lines is an unsourced claim that he claimed to have studied hypnosis? Were you referring to the Society for Psychical Research in London? Some how I doubt a two bit conman/Nazi collaborator who spent a good deal of 1946 - 51 in jail would have made the trip or did he claim to have gone before the war? Did this some how qualify him to pull off a feat no one else has been known to pull off? With all that’s been uncovered about MK Ultra and other programs I never heard about the CIA etc being able to pull something like this off.

I just took a look at the SPR site they don’t even seem to teach hypnosis though off course things might have been different decades ago.

SPR Research

The promotion of research is one of the most important functions of the Society.

The principal areas of study of psychical research concern exchanges between minds, or between minds and the environment, which are not dealt with by current, orthodox science. This is a large area, incorporating such topics as extrasensory perception (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and retrocognition), psychokinesis (paranormal effects on physical objects, including poltergeist phenomena), near-death and out-of-the-body experiences, apparitions, hauntings and paranormal healing. One of the Society's aims has been to examine the question of whether we survive bodily death, by evaluating the evidence provided by mediumship, apparitions of the dead and reincarnation studies. We support, and have supported, a variety of projects undertaken both by individuals and by postgraduate students at universities.

The Society is a charity, and is continuously looking to increase its funding for parapsychology/ psychical research and education, raising funds for projects through appeals for donations and bequests, and asking members to become involved in our work on a voluntary basis.

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=50

that In prison, he seems to have targetted Hardrup because he was "highly hypnotizable", and ended up sharing the same cell from the spring of 1947 for eighteen months.

What evidence is there for the above?

I have read a very rare library copy of "Antisocial or Criminal Acts and Hypnosis" several years ago, but do not currently possess a physical copy. So, I cannot provide you with any extracts. However, it was written by Dr. Paul Reiter, who at the time was Chief of the Psychiatric Department of the Copenhagen Municipal Hospital. His clinical opinion was the result of nineteen months of study.

One author (Robert Blair Kaiser) summarizes Reiter's book as follows:

According to Dr. Reiter, Nielsen created a

blindly obedient instrument in Hardrup,

[…]

It was Reiter’s conclusion that Nielsen had

created in Hardrup a split personality, a paranoid

schizophrenic,who was never aware,until Reiter’s

work with him, that he had been programmed for

crime,and programmed to forget that he had been

programmed.

Hardrup’s retraction seriously undermines the theory he acted under hypnosis and any studies based on the assumption he was are invalid if that was the case, as are any conclusions based on those studies no matter how well qualified the people who made them. I imagine the shrinks whose area of specialty was the criminally insane were just as if not better qualified to evaluate Ed Kemper and they had direct contact with him. That didn’t stop them from being completely wrong about him.

So, it is your contention that the considered clinical opinion of the Chief of the Psychiatric Department of the Copenhagen Municipal Hospital, based on 19 months of work, which concluded that Hardrup's psyche had been split and programmed to such an extent that he committed murder, is worthless.

IF he was hoodwinked by his patient, yes. Kemper managed to fool physiatrists from a hospital for the criminally insane including the one who made him his assistant for over 5 years. He managed to con two others after he’d recently killed 3 people including one the day before whose head apparently was in the trunk of his car.

"Ditto that of Denmark's Medico-Legal Council."

You’ve yet to produce evidence the “Medico-Legal Council” concluded he’d been hypnotized.

Your evidence for this statement is that Hardrup, whose psyche had been split and programmed, withdrew his confession some years later.

You’re using the assumption that he’d been “programmed” and had his “psyche…split” to negate evidence he might have made that up - that’s circular logic.

"I would suggest, simply but firmly, that you are grossly overstating your case."

I agree one of us is overstating our case. My position is not that Nielsen definitely didn’t program Hardrup but rather that in light of Hardrup’s later claim he made it up that the theory is seriously in doubt.

A Danish writer who specialized in psychology/psychiatry wrote a book about the case Hypnosemordene (Hypnosismurders) and based on Google translations seems to have speculated Nielsen might have been innocent.

“Regardless of guilt the indictment apparatus appears in an unflattering light, and you sense the contours of a miscarriage of justice on Schouw-Nielsen, who committed suicide in 1974.”

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...ure/hypnose.htm

“Some fifty years after the violent events Finn Abrahamowitz has dug up the 20,000 pages of source materials to Danish history’s largest and most curious trial.

Was Palle Hardrup really hypnotized by Bjorn Schouw Nielsen, or was a miscarriage of justice committed ?”

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...1256FA9004C6DF3

[Len Colby]

Did this some how qualify him to pull off a feat no one else has been known to pull off? With all that’s been uncovered about MK Ultra and other programs I never heard about the CIA etc being able to pull something like this off.

You need to do some more reading then.

I'm sure you can fill in the blanks then. Why keep citing the Hardrup case if you have documented cases of the CIA being able to do this? And no, I don't think people freaking out and jumping out windows after being surreptitiously slipped acid counts.

Also I'm curious, did you or didn't you know previously that Hardrup later said he made it up?

Why would he have said this if it were untrue?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

So, it is your contention that the considered clinical opinion of the Chief of the Psychiatric Department of the Copenhagen Municipal Hospital, based on 19 months of work, which concluded that Hardrup's psyche had been split and programmed to such an extent that he committed murder, is worthless.

“Given these strong biases to accept what the patient says as genuine and to presume the presence of illness rather than its absence, it is not all that surprising that it is relatively easy to fool psychiatrists into thinking that a normal person is mentally disturbed”

Edgar Miller, Stephen Morley, INVESTIGATING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR, Psychology Press, 1987 [iSBN 0863770525, 9780863770524] Pg 20

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zvl7nDd-l...8&ct=result

The authors are respectively, District Psychologist, Cambridge Health Authority and Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of Leeds

"IT'S really not hard to make up stuff," grinned David Weightman as he boasted to a jury how he had fooled psychiatrists into thinking he was insane when he murdered his parents in order to get a lighter sentence.”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/killer...9881595493.html

This suggests that sometimes sex offenders are more realistic than 'experts' about changing their behaviour: jailing for life sex-sadist Paul Beart (who horribly tortured a woman to death) Mrs Justice Hallet said she was "...astonished Beart managed to fool experts into believing he was not a risk". Beart had previously been jailed for five years but released after three, having "passed a sex offenders' rehabilitation course and posed as a model prisoner" (Lakeman, 2001).

[…]

Unlike the authentically mentally ill (who usually withdraw socially) Sutcliffe led a gregarious existence: he had a variety of girl-friends and often drank with friends in pubs. After his arrest he co-operated fully with the police but made no mention of 'voices'.

Six days after his arrest (long before his talk of a "mission from God") prison officer John Leach overheard him tell his wife, Sonia,"...I am going to do a long time in prison, thirty years or more, unless I can convince people in here I am mad and maybe then ten years in the loony bin" (Yallop, 1981; pp.350-351). Only later did he mention 'voices'.

Suttcliffe claimed to have a divine mission to kill prostitutes; yet "out of at least twenty women attacked, ten are not and never have been prostitutes..." (Yallop, 1981; p.337). Sutcliffe told a Broadmoor nurse that he'd fooled psychiatrists and later admitted that "There was no voice in my head. There was no voice from God" (Moyes, 2001).

[…]

Nail-bomber David Copeland also conned psychiatrists into believing he was insane, but the jury rejected this ruse after hearing he'd admitted that he'd invented 'voices'. "Defence expert Dr. Paul Gilluley...agreed Copeland admitted he had pretended that 'voices' had spoken to him" (Twomey, 2000). "[Copeland]...confessed that he enjoyed tricking and confusing people as he was questioned by doctors attempting to discover if he was mad" (Twomey, 2000).

"Copeland told the doctors that he had been chosen by God to spark a race war...But he never mentioned his divine mission during police interviews despite being asked 16 times why he planted the...devices" (Twomey, 2000). His defence was that he was mentally ill but the jury rightly found him guilty. Yet regrettably - like Sutcliffe - he was sent to Broadmoor anyway, thereby seemingly confirming his concocted psychosis.

http://www.mind-in-manchester.org.uk/campa..._or_badness.php

“An MP says new evidence suggests Peter Sutcliffe - who murdered 13 women in the 1970s - had fooled psychiatrists.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2833589.stm

“Ian McEwan's bestselling tale of violent obsession, Enduring Love, was based on a true story. Or was it? He tells Oliver Burkeman how reviewers and leading psychiatrists were hoodwinked by his fake case notes and explains why he finally came clean”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1999.../features11.g24

''I dare say that not one psychiatrist who has analyzed me knows any more about me than the average person on the street who has read about me in the newspapers. Psychiatry is a guessing game, and I do my best to keep the fools guessing about me. They will never know the true John Hinckley.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

LOL