KILLER AND SERIAL RAPIST PAUL BERNARDO SCORED HIGH ON PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY TRAITS, SUCH AS BEING GLIB, SELFISH, CUNNING, GRANDIOSE AND MANIPULATIVE, ACCORDING TO HIS RECENT PAROLE BOARD HEARING.

First public exam of notorious killer since 1995

Killer and serial rapist Paul Bernardo, 54, has one close friend he describes as a feminist who has all the control in their relationship, according to correctional records. If ever released on full parole, he plans to live with this friend in Ontario to be near his aging parents, then move away from the province he horrified a quarter century ago by preying on young women and girls. He scores high on psychopathic personality traits, such as being glib, selfish, cunning, grandiose and manipulative. But he is not technically a psychopath, falling short on the standard checklist’s second part about anti-social behaviour traits, such as impulsiveness and unstable lifestyle. These are some of the surprising details revealed in the Parole Board of Canada’s newly released written reasons for denying Bernardo any sort of parole on Oct. 17. They constitute the first thorough public examination of Bernardo’s psychology since a report was prepared for his designated offender hearing in 1995, for which he refused to be interviewed.

As ever with the notorious serial rapist and murderer, there is much “discordant information” in his file, most of it put there by Bernardo himself.

The close friend, for example, appears to be the first new friendship for Bernardo since a correspondence with a woman in 2014 through phone and letters grew worryingly sexualized. The Parole Board noted that his communications had “similarities to (his) crime cycle,” reflected in a sharp increase in masturbation and sexually dominant fantasies that caused Bernardo’s psychologist great concern. That woman eventually cut off contact. Contrary to common understanding, Bernardo does not meet one set of formal criteria for being a sexual sadist because there is no evidence of impulse and anger control at a young age and his anger is specific to women. His victims were all female, 14 to 23 years in age. This is in accordance with Bernardo’s own claim that he did not enjoy inflicting pain, but rather that he used his attacks to feel better about himself. He was a serial rapist with a disregard for his victims’ suffering, he claims, not a sadist who enjoyed it. As he said at his hearing, “I overused sex. That led to those cognitive distortions. Sexually objectifying women is a juvenile cognitive distortion.” Another measure, however, suggests he is properly labelled a severe sexual sadist according to the main psychiatric handbook. The 10 pages of reasons are the documentary conclusion to a surreal hearing that saw Bernardo reflect on his own psychological oddities in a way the lead board member found “academic,” almost as if he were talking about someone else. He sounded rehearsed, if not actually scripted. In a psychological risk assessment earlier this year, he even occasionally spoke about himself in the third person.

He claims to have discovered that his sadistic sexual atrocities stemmed from low self-esteem, misguided coping mechanisms, “cognitive distortions” and the disinhibiting effects of stress and alcohol. He thinks he had an anxiety disorder.

The Parole Board was having none of it. His behaviour speaks for itself, they found, and puts the lie to his claim to be “a nice and compassionate guy.” The gains he has made through therapy in prison have been “minimal and recent.” The board thought he was using his self-diagnosis as a “mantra to disassociate yourself from your actions.”

His theories are also slowing his progress in treatment programs because they block real insight.

The various “psychometric instruments” that have been administered

HE SCORES HIGH ON PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY TRAITS, SUCH AS BEING GLIB, SELFISH, CUNNING AND MANIPULATIVE.

to him reveal a mainly remorseless man who is so quick to deny his own problems, and so keen to portray himself in a positive light, that he “may not be amenable to treatment.”

He has even suggested he “cured” himself.

At his hearing, he was defensive, and exaggerated the wrong he felt was done to him, for example, calling evaluation documents fraudulent or falsified. “The Board questions your ability to be challenged, which in turn impedes the process of change,” they write.

The decision notes that he has been the target of “actual and threatened assaults” by other inmates, and he has not reacted in a violent way. As a “no-contact” offender, he has little interaction with anyone else. He has had 30 urinalysis tests, all negative for banned substances. He scored quite well on a statistical scale used to predict recidivism. His score of +14 means four out of five like offenders will not commit an indictable offence within three years of release. That is a general measure, however, and the more specific risk of sexual re-offending is moderate.

He can apply for parole again in two years.