So what did the Adolescence psychologist’s report state?

[sideeyes]

I have been thinking about this for a few days. What do you think?

I don't think not having a traditional masculine identity is enough explanation here.

I'm finding it hard to believe that this and semi stable family background plus internet exposure would lead to killing someone.

But maybe it is the Internet exposure at a young age.

I've always thought smart phones shouldn't be allowed until at least fifteen. We dictate that they must go to school which creates an extended childhood so they should be protected more.

So sorry for your loss @goldringfinger my relatives DS (18) did the same last year, family devastated. The world is sometimes too hard and all the difficulties can stack as they seem to have done in the case of Jamie in Adolescence, not one thing to blame but lots of others adding on.

My thoughts were … a household run by a man who, although loving, barely holds his temper in check. Everything revolves around him. Mum and daughter tip toeing around him and helping to keep his temper under control.

Very ‘oldschool’ masculine … and a son who did not fulfil the traditional masculine gender role. So looked to the internet for guidance. Yikes!

It was basically a perfect storm once you factor in the bullying at school.

I just watched episode 4, I thought it showed some hope for Jamie - he’s started drawing again so maybe had encouragement to feel ok doing less masculine activities and the fact that he changed his plea meant he was taking accountability and facing the consequences. I think it showed that he would be ok.

I this is very accurate. The moment that got me - not sure if anyone else picked up on this - was at the end of the psychologists interview.

She was asking him if he knew what death was and I suppose trying to elicit some empathy or grasp his level of empathy. But he ultimately responded - it seemed to me - by saying or implying that he could have been sexual with her at that moment when he had the knife but he wasn't. Not sure I'm articulating that very well because I don't understand it myself- maybe it was hinting that he had planned to but decided not to, or that he believed he was somehow morally better because he didn't. The point was the death part was just totally and utterly meaningless to him. You were left seeing that the killing was null to him. He thought so little of her - she wasn't human to him. Or rather, he wasn't human - the core of him very unfathomably dark. So to assessment in the last sentence from @SleepingCatBlanket.

I thought I was the only one!! That episode and her line of questioning made zero sense.

His dad also didn't seem to have pushed him into murder in any way, but the psychologist kept going on about his dad.

My dad is similar to Jamie's in some ways - very loving great dad who would do anything for his family but sometimes short-tempered. I can assure you that neither me nor my brother have murdered anyone. My brother is also lovely. So I don't understand how the dad is to blame here to be honest. He just seemed like a normal loving father.

She was asking about his father to understand his idea of masculinity. Not because it's his father's 'fault'. It's not that simple. The fact that he was a fairly normal loving father was terrifying to me. We tend to think of these things as happening in abusive families, but Jamie lived a normal life. All of our children are at risk of this, and I'm personally upping my communication game as a result.

Before I knew, I could tell it was written by an 'acTORRR' most interested in a selfindulgent, overlong, overemotional showcase of his skills.

This.

Huge numbers of boys have grown up with dad's like this in the past and didn't kill anyone.

There is another reason, online influences, psychopathy, he saw her as less than him, not a person, he was in a moment filled with rage. More to.it.

The world's leading expert on child murderers says:

"First, murders don’t just happen. They are the result of a constellation of factors, including individual, family, peers and life circumstances. Most juvenile homicide offenders have had many adverse childhood events that put them at risk for behaving maladaptively. Second, murders and violence by juveniles can be reduced by increasing developmental assets or protective factors. Ordinary people can make a difference in the lives of at-risk kids by taking time to acknowledge and assist them. Kindness goes a long way, particularly with respect to young people whose lives are filled with child maltreatment, poverty and myriad forms of trauma. Third, juveniles who act out are not the equivalent of adults who behave badly. With rare exceptions, they have the capacity to change. If given time to mature and provided with appropriate treatment and interventions, some juvenile homicide offenders, perhaps, many, may be able to be safely released into society in the future."

Kathleen Heide

I don't think all our children are at risk. Most of the real life incel killers seem to have a diagnosis such as autism.
It was a great drama for inspiring debate but I would not say the boy had a realistic profile.

The point of the programme is this could happen to anyone’s child. There were so many contributing factors to why Jamie did what he did, all of them seeming insignificant individually but just maybe all together cause someone to snap.

People looking for one clear “reason” or thinking Jamie needs to very obviously be a psychopath in order to commit a murder I fear are missing the point- or desperately want to find a reason so they feel better that their own children aren’t at risk of doing something like this.

Neither of the two boys I have actually known who killed girls (both were girlfriends) had autism diagnoses.

Both came from , on the face of it, stable, nuclear families.

I think part of the point of the series was the seemingly ordinary child from an ordinary family committing a horrific crime and how we all try to make sense of that and come to conclusions.

On another note - the prison officer. That was just a by product of one take real time filming. People do make small talk and are irritants to others. Anyone calling him an incel might want to look the word up...

The real time filming is also why we didn't get the interesting long form drama stuff like the trial or contrast with Katie's family and friends and their grief. That very much did annoy me as did the lack of focus on the trauma to the school community who were portrayed as blithely untroubled which is grade A nonsense.

This. The dad had always been angry and violent towards objects (and probably people, just not his family) but thought he was doing better than his own dad. But he wasn’t.

I zoned out a bit when they were talking about their own teenage life in the van in episode 4, but from reading these posts I now see it was a contrast with their own son’s life at 13. I also wonder if this plays into gender roles too - they were together for so long that they have no other experience of family relationships or intimate relationships. Sometimes that’s damaging.

Really? Omg I was bored witless after episode 1. I can't believe the hype for this series.

I think many viewers missed all this. I thought it was incredibly thought provoking.

I agree that all kinds of men are capable of killing wives and girlfriends.
The incel online cult is slightly different and autistic children are more vulnerable to it.

I too didn't think it was the boys up bringing. I think he was a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off. It was just his wiring was wrong and nobody noticed. But the Internet didn't help.
My dad was like the father and there was 8 of us kids and none of us stabbed anyone.

Just gonna throw this in there. Not sure if it’s been covered already. But….

I THINK THE DAD DID IT

Why would you think that?

There was the tape.

There was the admission to the psychologist.

I found the one take approach unnecessary and a bit of a gimmick. I think the story could have been told better although there was some great acting in it.

It's interesting how the two perceptions are revealed. My family was a lot like this.

My brother fell into drugs and has paranoid schizophrenia (never harmed anyone). It does make you wonder where it came from - undoubtedly there's always a nature nurture balance. I'd say maybe 40% nature.

He was only hitting her in the tape not stabbing her?

Jamie has been very open and honest and everything else that he said apart from that he actually did the deed. And I think that says a lot.

The father’s display of some form of guilt is overwhelmingly larger than the mother and the sister and he apologises profusely to Jamie and his Teddy at the end scene.

I honestly don’t think Jamie did it

What? You think it was a 50 year old man in the cctv and not a 13 year old boy?

Also, Ryan said he gave Jamie the knife and knew he'd stabbed her.