First, thanks to tenniswhiz and hellojapan for clearing up many of the stuff ts wrongfully posted (i cringed hard when he labeled bpd as psychopathy).
What many have to realize, and that might or might not help for understandig, is that psychopathology is not a dichotom criteria, but a continuum of cognitions with a completly functional and "sane" end (allthough i don't believe that this exists in humans, we all have are problems and those who would vow they don't are imo either not educated and reflective enough to identify and aknowledge their problematic patterns or this denial might even be part of the problem) and a completly disfunctional end. The dichotomisation in sane and sick probably arose from clinical pragmatics and seems to confuse the layman. You don't have to fullfill the criteria of a diagnose to share common problematic cognitions and behaviors with those diagnosed. A clinical diagnose (and since im not a clinical psychologist, please clear up if there are exceptions) is cummulative diagnose, for example you take one person that fullfills the criteria of a borderline personality disorder. Than you do nothing else but work on self-injurious behavior (assuming this person commits sib as it is one possible (but not neccessary) criteria for bpd-diagnose) and the person succesfully abandones this behaviour. If she had just the minimum amount of points for the diagnosis, she can't longer be labeled a borderliner.
Does that mean she has not the same problems (minus sib) as befor?
Of course not. Of course she does.
Some might have similar problems (cognitions and behavior) than one who could be diagnosed with npd or aspd, only not the exact same amount or intensity, without beeing labeled with a psychopathology. You can share the same traits in a subclinical sector. Most, maybe all normal cognitions shared among every "normal" human can develop to be psychopathologies if extremly increased or decreased in intensity.
I just wanted to add this, to further show why it really is of no purpose than entertainment to speculate which psychopathology jones posseses.
I dislike his personality (even though i do pitty him in some ways as he seems rather insecure in many occasions, but of course i could be wrong), he might be rather egocentric (which i believe you have to be to some degree to be succesfull on a high level) but to assume that he is a narcisist or a psychopath because he didn't first thought of the woman he hurt is hasty.
By the way, this is another rather interesting human cognition: the indignation about the behaviour of a person in a situation, without ever have proven to act differently. The lack of modesty in regards to accept that one can't say for sure how one would have acted in a similar situation, but declare one would have made everything right and would have acted helpful and selflessly while hundreds and thousands of studies over decades have shown evidence that completly normal humans often times act exactly like those who they look down to and verbally attack because of their lack of helpfull and selflessly behavior.
But it's so nice to play holier than you without the burden of proof that one really is.
I hope this all is somewhat coherent. I hate to write posts on the mobile phone because of the lack of text oberview