Divorcee Sues to Reclaim £6.4m Given to Internet Lover

By Amanda Perthen

(U.K.) A multi-millionaire divorcee has launched a High Court battle to reclaim £6.4 million from a lover she met through the internet.

Catherine Wood, 50, who amassed her fortune through property deals, met Shlomo Add via an online dating agency after she split from her husband, Jean Francois Cornet De Chansard.

But the romance turned sour after lawyer Mr Add persuaded Ms Wood to hand over millions of pounds during their four-year relationship, the High Court in London heard. The judge agreed to freeze Mr Add’s assets so that he could not dispose of them before the case came to trial. But Mr Add, 53, insists a large portion of the money was an ‘outright gift’ and is contesting the claims. The court heard that Mr Add came up with a number of plausible stories as to why he needed cash from her.

On one occasion he telephoned from Israel asking for £1.1 million in cash, saying he needed it for bail as he was in custody facing tax evasion charges. Ms Wood wired him the cash so he could be released. On another occasion, the court was told, Mr Add bought a Ferrari using assets belonging to Ms Wood.

Ms Wood, who made her money buying and selling properties through the family business, fought back tears as she said: ‘It’s been so painful, I can’t talk about it.’ The couple’s romance started in 2007 after Mr Add had split from his wife, Ruth, a former dancer. Despite Mr Add making regular trips to Israel, he and Ms Wood met regularly.

Mr Add lived in a £275,000 semi-detached house on an estate near East Grinstead, West Sussex. Ms Wood, who has two children – James, 17, and Natasha, 16, with Mr Cornet De Chansard – had a five-bedroom property worth £2.3 million in Golders Green, North London. But by the time the relationship had ended, Mr Add had bought a £550,000 house on a private road just a few miles from his previous home, which he still owns.

Last week, a blue Maserati saloon and a grey four-wheel-drive vehicle were parked on the driveway. Mr Add is currently staying at his £1.2 million waterfront apartment just outside Tel Aviv. A neighbour said: ‘The people who buy property here are not just any people. ‘They are wealthy bankers, Russian oligarchs, French millionaires and some of Israel’s best known figures in the underworld.’

Mr Add declined to comment on the court case, adding that his daughter Hila, who is in the Israeli Defence Force, was staying with him and he had no time to spare.

After granting permission for Mr Add’s assets to be frozen, Judge David Cook said at the High Court: ‘Her [Ms Wood’s] allegations, if correct, show a course of conduct over a number of years in which he [Mr Add] has been able to obtain assets of a wealthy woman under a series of pretexts and promises which he has not kept.’

The case continues.

original article here

Social Networking Web Sites Encourage Cyberstalking

by Shelby Hill

Many college students use Facebook.com daily without being aware of the cyberstalking threat.

When students put their phone numbers, addresses and other personal information on a social networking site like Facebook, they increase their chances of being a cyberstalking victim, said Michael Kaiser, executive director of the National Cyber Security Alliance.

January was National Stalking Awareness Month and Kaiser said that because people between the ages of 18-24 have the highest victimization rate, due to the popularity of Facebook and MySpace.com, it's important for students to protect themselves against cyberstalking.

"People should be really guarded in sharing personal information," Kaiser said. "I wouldn't suggest that the Internet is a place to write an autobiography."

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project's January 2009 report about adults and social networking websites, 75 percent of Internet users in the 18-24 age group have a profile on a social networking Web site.

A social networking Web site is a place for people to connect with each other by creating a profile that each individual can customize with pictures, contact information and details about interests, such as music and movies, to reflect that person's personality. Kaiser said an e-mail address is usually the only information needed to become part of a social networking Web site.

Some tips Kaiser had for students were install a firewall, anti-spyware, use the highest privacy settings on social networking web sites and limit the information they put online.

Kaiser advised students that they should "be really careful about who you let into your circle."

Along with the active steps that students can take to protect themselves, Kaiser suggested that students enter their names into a search engine to see if they come across information that they didn't know was there.

"People don't even know sometimes how much information about them there is on the Web," Kaiser said. "People leave trails all over the Internet and stalkers will use those trails."

He said stalkers would use anything from an e-mail address to a phone number, street address or instant message, to stalk a victim.

Nick Penta, a pre-veterinary science freshman, said he thinks an ex-girlfriend stalked him over MySpace. He said she sent him several messages and viewed his profile about 20 times a day to learn about his new girlfriend.

Kaiser said stalking is defined as repeated actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.

Penta added that he wasn't scared of his ex's actions.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's January 2009 report "Stalking Victimization in the United States," of the 3.4 million Americans who reported being stalked, 25 percent reported being cyberstalked through email or instant messaging.

Stephen Orlando, a pre-business freshman said he experienced the same jealous behavior by an ex, over the Internet.

According to the report, 75 percent of stalking victims were stalked by someone they knew.

"The vast majority of stalking is done by people who know each other," Kaiser said.

Even taking into account Orlando and Penta's experiences with exes over the Web, the two men have not chosen to make their Facebook profiles private and non-viewable to users whom they have not given permission.

Kaiser advised students to "use the highest privacy settings you can on any of the social networking sites."

Amy Cheng, a pre-physiology freshman, said her Facebook profile is private and she doesn't post her personal information on the page.

"I don't put anything on there that I wouldn't show my mom," Cheng said about information on her Facebook profile.

Emily Smith, an undeclared freshman, said that although her profile isn't private, she doesn't put any contact information on her Facebook profile.

She added that if she had more of an issue with cyberstalking she might consider changing her profile to private.

Orlando said that he thinks that cyberstalking is more of an issue for women than men.

"There's a lot more creeper stalker people looking for girls than guys," he said.

Penta said that the difference could be attributed to the fact that some women put relatively provocative photos on their individual profiles.

"They're easier targets, just because their pictures might be more revealing," Penta said.

Whatever the reason, the Department of Justice report did concede that women run a much greater risk for being victims of cyberstalking than men.

Whether the victim is a man or woman, the fact that friends and family support the stalking victim is crucial, Kaiser said.

For more information on cyberstalking, Kaiser said that students should visit the National Center for Victims of Crime's Web site, www.ncvc.org or the National Cyber Security Alliance's Web site, www.staysafeonline.org.

The Cyberpath = Psychopath With Internet Access

Psychopaths With Internet Access



An Excerpt from the book: In Sheep's Clothing
By George K. Simon

(how many of these have you seen or discovered in your Online Predator??... comments in dark blue are EOPC's and not the author's)

Two Basic Types of Aggression
There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to "win," dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.

Acts of Covert-Aggression vs. Covert-Aggressive Personalities
Most of us have engaged in some sort of covertly aggressive behavior from time to time. Periodically trying to manipulate a person or a situation doesn't make someone a covert-aggressive personality. Personality can be defined by the way a person habitually perceives, relates to and interacts with others and the world at large.

The tactics of deceit, manipulation and control are a steady diet for covert-aggressive personality. It's the way they prefer to deal with others and to get the things they want in life.

The Process of Victimization
For a long time, I wondered why manipulation victims have a hard time seeing what really goes on in manipulative interactions. At first, I was tempted to fault them. But I've learned that they get hoodwinked for some very good reasons:

1. A manipulator's aggression is not obvious. Our gut may tell us that they're fighting for something, struggling to overcome us, gain power, or have their way, and we find ourselves unconsciously on the defensive. But because we can't point to clear, objective evidence they're aggressing against us, we can't readily validate our feelings.

2. The tactics manipulators use can make it seem like they're hurting, caring, defending, ..., almost anything but fighting. These tactics are hard to recognize as merely clever ploys. They always make just enough sense to make a person doubt their gut hunch that they're being taken advantage of or abused. Besides, the tactics not only make it hard for you to consciously and objectively tell that a manipulator is fighting, but they also simultaneously keep you or consciously on the defensive. These features make them highly effective psychological weapons to which anyone can be vulnerable. It's hard to think clearly when someone has you emotionally on the run.

3. All of us have weaknesses and insecurities that a clever manipulator might exploit. Sometimes, we're aware of these weaknesses and how someone might use them to take advantage of us. For example, I hear parents say things like: "Yeah, I know I have a big guilt button." - But at the time their manipulative child is busily pushing that button, they can easily forget what's really going on. Besides, sometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators often know us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when and how hard. Our lack of self-knowledge sets us up to be exploited.

4. What our gut tells us a manipulator is like, challenges everything we've been taught to believe about human nature.

We've been inundated with a psychology that has us seeing everybody, at least to some degree, as afraid, insecure or "hung-up." So, while our gut tells us we're dealing with a ruthless conniver, our head tells us they must be really frightened or wounded "underneath." What's more, most of us generally hate to think of ourselves as callous and insensitive people. We hesitate to make harsh or seemingly negative judgments about others. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't really harbor the malevolent intentions we suspect. We're more apt to doubt and blame ourselves for daring to believe what our gut tells us about our manipulator's character.

Recognizing Aggressive Agendas
Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle oneself in any of life's many battles, has turned out to be the most empowering experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem.

Recognizing the inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick, surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is extremely important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and, therefore, fail to respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and how manipulators are fighting with covertly aggressive tactics is essential.

Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics
Almost everyone is familiar with the term defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are the "automatic" (i.e. unconscious) mental behaviors all of us employ to protect or defend ourselves from the "threat" of some emotional pain. More specifically, ego defense mechanisms are mental behaviors we use to "defend" our self-images from "invitations" to feel ashamed or guilty about something. There are many different kinds of ego defenses and the more traditional (psychodynamic) theories of personality have always tended to distinguish the various personality types, at least in part, by the types of ego defenses they prefer to use. One of the problems with psychodynamic approaches to understanding human behavior is that they tend to depict people as most always afraid of something and defending or protecting themselves in some way; even when they're in the act of aggressing. Covert-aggressive personalities (indeed all aggressive personalities) use a variety of mental behaviors and interpersonal maneuvers to help ensure they get what they want. Some of these behaviors have been traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms.

While, from a certain perspective we might say someone engaging in these behaviors is defending their ego from any sense of shame or guilt, it's important to realize that at the time the aggressor is exhibiting these behaviors, he is not primarily defending (i.e. attempting to prevent some internally painful event from occurring), but rather fighting to maintain position, gain power and to remove any obstacles (both internal and external) in the way of getting what he wants. Seeing the aggressor as on the defensive in any sense is a set-up for victimization. Recognizing that they're primarily on the offensive, mentally prepares a person for the decisive action they need to take in order to avoid being run over. Therefore, I think it's best to conceptualize many of the mental behaviors (no matter how "automatic" or "unconscious" they may appear) we often think of as defense mechanisms, as offensive power tactics, because aggressive personalities employ them primarily to manipulate, control and achieve dominance over others. Rather than trying to prevent something emotionally painful or dreadful from happening, anyone using these tactics is primarily trying to ensure that something they want to happen does indeed happen. Let's take a look at the principal tactics covert-aggressive personalities use to ensure they get their way and maintain a position of power over their victims:

Denial - This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a "defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.

Selective Inattention - This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda.

Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. Ed Hicks & Yidwithlid did this) By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change.

Rationalization - A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have) but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.



Diversion - A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas. (Jacoby, Doug Beckstead, Sammy Benoit /Jeff Dunetz/ Yidwithlid all used this one constantly - and with initial good results for them!)

Whenever someone is not responding directly to an issue, you can safely assume that for some reason, they're trying to give you the slip.

Lying - It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators - covert-aggressive personalities that they are - are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. (William Michael Barber, John Gash, Yidwithlid, Ed Hicks & Phil Haberman all did this)They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying -- omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.

Covert Intimidation - Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics. (Dorsky, Hicks, Jacoby, Beckstead, Rodger & Yidwithlid all used overt & covert threats - including disappearing on the Targets for days or weeks at a time, as 'threats')

Guilt-tripping - One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position.

The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.

Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.

Shaming - This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.

Playing the Victim Role - This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. (Yidwithlid did this one when caught! Beckstead complained about his cold, unfeeling wife...) One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

(Jeff Dunetz /Gridney/ Yidwithlid also used this as a lure, i.e. his cold, disappointing marriage and how Target #1 and eventually Target #2 were the ONLY people he could 'really talk to.'

Dorksy also used this one in telling his Target she was the 'only girl for' him because all the girls in his area were 'sluts' and unworthy.

Beckstead's wife "wouldn't have sex with" him.

Dan Jacoby was "waiting for his divorce to be final" and "no one understood him.")


Vilifying the Victim - This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive. (Ed Hicks (aka Charles Greene aka Charles Hicks aka....) was big on this one! Dan Jacoby's the latest to do this tired ploy.)

Playing the Servant Role - Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others. (Yidwithlid used this one saying he was religious and writing articles to support causes which only furthered his own agenda and were placed on his old website - a site in which he used the guestbook to troll for new targets. Currently he tells people reading his blog to EMAIL him with their email addresses so he can "add them to his mailing list." -- There are free sites that do that automatically; which leads us to believe Jeff Dunetz is collects new emails for targetting! At the same time, he convinced Target #1 he was as altruistic as she was -- when he was actually only furthering a personal, selfish egotistical agenda, serial cheating with high price hookers on his wife and family at the same time and lying to everyone around him about who & what he really was. Just like ALL cyberpaths!)

One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.

Seduction - Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty.

Covert-aggressives are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others.

He melts any resistance you might have to giving him your loyalty and confidence. He does this by giving you what he knows you need most. He knows you want to feel valued and important. So, he often tells you that you are. You don't find out how unimportant you really are to him until you turn out to be in his way. (And then he tells you to get over YOUR 'bruised ego.')

Projecting the blame (blaming others) or Blame-Shifting - Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways. (all our Cyberpaths do this so much - we'd spend another couple posts just point it all out!)

Minimization - This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.

I've presented the principal tactics that covert-aggressives use to manipulate and control others. They are not always easy to recognize. Although all aggressive personalities tend to use these tactics, covert-aggressives generally use them slickly, subtly and adeptly. Anyone dealing with a covertly aggressive person will need to heighten gut-level sensitivity to the use of these tactics if they're to avoid being taken in by them.

original article here

How Psychopaths View Their World

Most psychopaths are very arrogant and cocky. However, when charming a potential victim, they say all the "right" things and make you believe they are kind-hearted souls; not always, but often enough. The truth is, psychopaths are not altruistic and do not really care about friendships or ties. Guggenbuhl-Craig states that they are very talented at appearing much more humble than the average person, but are hardly so. Some are also able to feign concern about the lower classes and profess that they are on the side of the underdog, the poor, and so forth.


A psychopath may claim, for instance (if he's from a low socio-economic class), that he dislikes rich people intensely, but at the same time, he will inwardly yearn and envy what they have. He is like the narcissist, desiring to reflect a false image of himself through his possessions. Among his possessions are included human beings: girlfriends, wives, and children. Some psychopaths can even very fond of animals (contrary to the common viewpoint), but still view them as objects in relation to themselves.

The psychopath is filled with greed inside, relating to the world through power, even though, as I said, on the outside he can claim to be on the side of the disenfranchised or the downtrodden. I knew one who liked to repeat phrases such as "they have to stop keeping my brothers down" but he didn't mean a word of it. He was actually a racist. The psychopath can also often identify himself as a revolutionary.

On the flip side, the psychopath also often paints a picture of himself as the downcast anti-hero (his "own worst enemy type") and some like to see themselves as lone-wolves. The psychopath may even claim he is sensitive and profound, but inside he is nothing but emptiness and greed. Whether or not the psychopath is aware of his behaviour is something that is often debated. I do believe that psychopaths usually know exactly what they are doing, although others suggest that psychopaths are "born, not made." [1]

As mentioned, psychopaths often claim to settle for second best (being their own worst enemy) and then think they deserve better. This may be manifested in the way they seek power -- either through money (i.e. material goods), manipulation and/or treating people as objects. By enacting such behaviours, the psychopath is also trying to "get back" at society and the world, in order to gain retribution. They will spend their entire lives doing this, whether they are rich or poor, or whatever their social background may be, although studies have shown that they often come from an impoverished or lower socio- economic background and/or social status. (In one of Dr. Donald Black's studies, many of the men were "overwhelmingly white, blue collar, lower middle class, and married, and most had not graduated from high school." [Black, 14]). (Let me add, despite Dr. Blacks' studies, psychopaths can still exist in any social class. Do not be misled).

I also wanted to point out that I will be using "he" and "him" for the term psychopath throughout this website; let it not be forgotten, yes, female psychopaths exist as well; however, according to the Sixth Edition of Abnormal Behavior, printed in 2000 by three male professors, David, Derald, and Stanley Sue, the rates do differ by gender. Included in their excellent text is a report by the The American Psychiatric Association that the general estimate is 3% for men, and less than 1% in women [Personality Disorders and Impulse Control Disorders, 238].

What is very disturbing about psychopaths, besides their sense of special entitlement, is the complete lack of empathy for normal people, for "antisocials (psychopaths) seem to lack a conscience, feeling little or no empathy for the people whose lives they touch...the antisocial effortlessly resists all regulation, unable to see beyond his self-interest or to adopt standards of right versus wrong." [Black, XIII].

Not all psychopath are uneducated low-class misfits. Some of them are quite handsome and have good careers, and use this all the more to their benefit. Take a look at Ted Bundy; my friend's mother once went on a double-date with him and claimed he was the nicest person. His mother said he was the "best son any mother could have." Bundy was also apparently quite good-looking, which made him even more dangerous. So not all psychopaths are derelict, low-class, high school drop-outs, there are many who also work in professional occupations.

Also, not all psychopaths are calm, cool, and collected. Some of them appear strange or odd, and their behaviour can be eccentric or unusual. I believe this is what can confuse victims most often. Psychopaths often appear [see pictures here]: intense and "electrifying". Do not be misled if someone appears harmless, "foolish", or seems offbeat. An "angelic" visage can also often fool people. Just picture John Wayne Gacy in his "clown costume" as he entertained children as one example.

A psychopath (he was diagnosed anti-social) I knew used the harmless cover-up quite well. Everyone thought he was very funny. I did too, at first. Then, little by little, I realised there was something "not right" about him. At first his seemingly harmless pranks were charming, but after a while, he became more of a nuisance and disrupted our work environment, which created havoc and tension between employees. I've learned, a psychopath can use these disguises for his own hidden purpose.

Regardless of race, social class, or occupation, however, the psychopath is dangerous to society, for "the nature of ASP (psychopathy) implies that it wreaks more havoc on society than most other mental illnesses do, since the disorder primarily involves reactions against the social environment that drag other people into its destructive web...The despair and anxiety wrought by antisocials (psychopaths) tragically affects families and communities, leaving deep physical and emotional scars..." [Black, 5].

There is much to the psychopathic personality which is baffling and disturbing. 1 in about 25-30 people are psychopathic (also known as sociopaths or anti-social -- the correct title being psychopath.) Since the majority or them are men, I wrote this site in part, to warn women about the dangers, especially women online, which I believe is a favourite "new medium" which appeals to psychopaths. I have personal experience with this subject as well. This is because "antisocials (psychopaths) are not just characters in our fictional or true-life entertainments. They are family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, or strangers we may encounter every day." [Black, 10].

Pamela Jayne, M.A., writes that "30% of men are sociopathic." If about every three out of ten men I may meet are psychopathic, I would assume this is not something to take lightly. According to these statistics, that would mean every three out of ten men and maybe every one out of ten females. The truth is, we do not really know exactly how many individuals are psychopathic; however, there seems to be a rise in the prevalence of psychopathy and that is why some claim that numbers are higher. Dr. Black claims that psychopathy leads right behind depression, along with schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, which is an astounding fact.

Do You Google Those You Meet Online?

Nearly two-thirds of daters use Facebook, Google and LinkedIn to scope out potential matches.

Online dating may no longer be taboo, but there's still the nagging question of safety associated with meeting someone over the internet.

Sure, some dating websites may begin screening their users, but in the land of "I'm-a-20-something-who-can't-pay-for-a-membership-or-for-your-fancy-background-checks" there's another alternative: total internet recon.

Yes, Google searching and Facebook stalking is good for more than just tracking the news on your former flames. In fact, the folks at JDate conducted a poll of their members to find out just how they gather information before meeting their online-interest in person.

Of the nearly 500 users surveyed, a whopping 59 percent of them use a combination of Facebook, Google and LinkedIn for investigative purposes. This makes a lot of sense—scan some photos, look for red flags in your search results and make sure your date has been honest about their work history. (note: if you find NOTHING - be suspicious. Better yet, don't meet people online.)

Some still stick to one platform—27 percent use Facebook only, 13 percent use Google only—but some searching is done nonetheless.

Now, the concept of "online stalking" is nothing new, but I must convey some words of caution for all of you research-crazy daters out there. Yes, knowledge is power, but don't spoil all of the mystery. Try and limit your pre-date investigation to a few basic questions. Ask yourself: Will I feel safe? Is this person an axe murderer? Is he going to dress like Marty McFly? Once you've squared all of that away, leave some room for on-the-date discovery. (and only meet in public the first few times)


(This would only work if the 'date' was using their REAL name and REAL location/ job - EOPC)

original article here

The Core of the Cyberpath: THE SOCIOPATH

...being alone isn't always a tragedy... I've known more than a few people in my life who made being alone seem like a little bit of heaven -- and I'll bet that you have known a few too. Run of the mill jerks and liars, two-timing cheats, verbal or physical abusers, small time con artists and that most dangerous one of all...the charming sociopath.

Oh, you've never met one? I sincerely envy you that, but just between friends, and speaking as someone who has had the misfortune to meet and all too closely observe one, let me introduce/warn you. Sociopaths are the most accomplished liar you've ever met in your life. In fact, they lie so well, that even when every instinct within you tells you they are lying through their teeth, you still can't quite make yourself accept the truth about them. They are masters of the old adage that says...if you want to get away with a lie make it such a big one that your audience/victims will believe it is true, simply because they cannot bring themselves to believe that anyone would actually tell such an outrageous lie...and think you were stupid enough to believe it! But their arrogance doesn't stop there, oh no, they lie, they cheat, they steal and they mercilessly use the very people who try to love them, or help them and they never...ever feel any guilt or remorse no matter who they hurt...unless of course it is themselves who are hurt.

Did I mention that they have no shame, an accomplished sociopath if caught outright, or even inconvenienced by any degree of disbelief will try to overbearingly dominate the situation with words, and if that doesn't work they will cry and whine and turn into a pitiful sniveling excuse for a human pleading for your mercy, with a lot of psycho-babble excuses for why it isn't their fault.

So now that I've introduced you to the lowest form of humanity, and possibly scared you half to death, or worse yet...made you snap your fingers and say, "I'll be darned that's what HE is--a freaking sociopath!" So now that I've done this to you, now what do I intend to do about it? Well I'll tell you. I intend to give you a few useful hints about things to watch out for and how to protect yourself and your family.

Sociopaths are likely to be rootless wanderers with nothing much to show for their lives. Why? For the simple reason that they are parasites. Therefore, sooner or later they always wear out their welcome and have to skip town or at the very least find a new set of victims. Of course, they always have some grandiose tale to explain their lack of home, family, possessions.... And believe me, it will be a truly convoluted tale -- starring them of course -- as the sympathetic, innocent victim of some horrible other person's treachery, deceit, thievery, evil etc. combined with lots of bad fortune and plenty of convenient reasons why they don't have any proof and why you can't talk to anyone, anywhere who can confirm any of this. And by the way, they probably won't be able to hold a "real job", because they have been in some sort of tragically disabling accident, or have an old war wound that prevents working! Let me state here for the record, I mean absolutely no offense to any veterans out there, because most sociopaths would be 4F'd in a heartbeat, so their war wounds and their war records are almost always going to be just another in a long line of lies! Anyway, whatever the excuse, even if they could find and hold a job for more than a few days, no self-respecting sociopath will work for a living ...they much prefer -- and in fact live for -- the thrill of leeching off of others like parasitic scum.

So what do you do to protect yourself against such a monster. It's really quite easy. Take nothing for granted. If you meet someone, whether it is on the internet, or at your local college campus, or at a bar or a movie or at a political rally or even in church and you decide you like them and want to get to know them better, use a reasonable amount of caution and always make sure that someone knows where you are, and who you are going to meet at all times. Don't give out too much information about yourself, and absolutely don't bring them home to meet the family until you "know" enough solid "facts" about them to trust that they are on the level and have a verifiable history. Try not to be paranoid, everyone has little secrets, and one little area that doesn't seem quite right is probably ok, but more than one should start to worry you, and if you have any real suspicions at all, either turn, walk away and never look back or visit a Web Detective Service and learn to protect yourself by investigating anyone, anywhere before it is too late! Find the facts that others want to hide. You can find missing people, including so-called long-lost relatives, court records, criminal records, vital records and more! Do it!

(thanks to OneOfSeven for this gem! - Fighter)

It's a Crime: Harassment

(INDIANA) Here’s how a Chesterton Police officer spent part of her shifts[].

At 9:36 a.m. on Monday, according to the officer’s initial report, a woman filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend—with whom she’d broken up on Saturday—after he “harassed her extensively via telephone over the past 24 hours” and sent her as well a total of 46 texts.

“She stated that some are just general conversation but in some he makes threats against both her and her estranged husband,” the officer stated and included these examples: “Watch your back the next few weeks”; and “I’m going to put your husband in the hospital.”

The officer duly contacted the ex-boyfriend and strongly advised him to “cease all contact” with both the woman and the woman’s husband. The ex-boyfriend admitted having sent some “stupid” texts and promised the officer that he would so cease.

Then, at 3:25 p.m. on Tuesday, the ex-boyfriend discovered what it’s like to be on the receiving end of threatening texts, the officer stated in her second report on the case. Beginning at 8:30 a.m. that day, the ex-boyfriend complained, he’d gotten a series of threatening texts apparently from the estranged husband. Examples: “Im still waiting 4 u 2 run ur mouth some more”; “Why dont you tell police that u like 2 chase married women”; “Better yet why dont u meet me”; “Whats wrong? U have nothing 2 say now?” and “I will find u!”

The ex-boyfriend advised that he hasn’t responded to the estranged husband’s texts and doesn’t intend to, that at the moment that estranged husband doesn’t know where he lives and he wants keep it that way, and that the estranged husband owns “multiple firearms” and “he is afraid that (the estranged husband) may harm him.”

Then, 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday—less than 30 minutes after the boyfriend had filed his complaint—the woman’s estranged husband also reported receiving from the ex-boyfriend a derogatory text about his wife at 12:05 a.m. on Monday, the officer stated in her third report on the case. This time the officer strongly advised the estranged husband to “cease all contact” with the ex-boyfriend.

The officer told all parties that her reports will be forwarded to the Porter County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.

Harassment

Harassment in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a term of up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Code defines it as occurring when “A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication,” makes a telephone call, sends a telegram, writes a letter, broadcasts over a CB radio, or uses a computer network to communicate with another person or to transmit “an obscene message or indecent or profane words.”

As Porter County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Gensel told the Chesterton Tribune, the key statutory element of the crime of harassment is “no intent of legitimate communication.” He gave this example. Say an estranged husband and wife are talking on the phone about the custody of their child. “There may be cussing and shouting, there may be trash talk, but at the end of the call they make some arrangement or reach some agreement about their child’s upraising. That’s not harassment. If there’s some legitimate communication beyond merely haranguing, then it’s not considered harassment. But if one parent is just calling up the other and screaming for the sake of screaming, then that may be harassment.”

Harassment can be a tricky crime to prosecute, Gensel noted. For one thing, “there’s the difficulty in interpreting a basis for what constitutes meaningful communication between the parties involved. Obscene calls are clearly harassment. But a text or call with a legitimate nugget of communication is not. It has to be wholly devoid of legitimate communication to be considered harassment under the law.”

For another, there really needs to be documentation of the harassment—a recorded call or a text—for a prosecution to be successful. “Otherwise, it’s just one person’s memory of what was said,” Gensel observed.

On occasion, a decision may be made not to prosecute because the harassment “was an isolated incident,” Gensel said. “Typically police officers took at whether the harassment is part of a continuing pattern and so do we.”

For the record, in November 2009 a Porter man was charged with harassment after Chesterton Police said that he e-mailed photos of himself to a Westchester Public Library employee and then left a note for her indicating that he was “waiting” for her.

Harassment as his deputies usually see it, Gensel said, tends to involve ex-friends, acquaintances, and family members in face-to-face or telephonic communication. Cyber-harassment is an altogether different issue. “One of the dilemmas about e-mails is who’s doing it, where are they doing it, and how will you find them?”

In any event, Gensel said, pinpointing the federal agency with jurisdiction in the matter can be problematic.

As it happens, Chesterton Police Chief George Nelson said, his officers spend a fair amount of their time responding to what are classified as either “Harassment” complaints or “Obscene/Harassing Phone Calls.” In 2009 alone, calls for service included a total of 122 of both.

More: according to the logs, the CPD officer who filed three separate reports on Monday and Tuesday devoted a total of 35 minutes of her time to the case or just under 12 minutes per report. If that average is in any way typical, the CPD devoted 24.4 hours or three full eight-hour shifts in 2010 to harassment complaints.

original article here

Teen Internet Love Gone Wrong - He's a She

By Helen Weathers

(U.K.) Fourteen-year-old Emily Marabella’s heart skipped a beat when she chanced upon the profile of ‘Mr Gorgeous’ on an internet social-networking site. With his long fringe sweeping out from under a beanie hat, chiselled jaw and pretty-boy looks, he was the very image of her teen idol, Justin Bieber.

Never in her wildest dreams did Emily think someone as adorable as ‘Mr Gorgeous’ would be attracted to a shy, self-conscious girl like her. So, when he replied to her first message, directing her to a YouTube clip of him singing the Bruno Mars’ song ‘Just the Way You Are’, Emily was thrilled.

It marked the start of an eight-month, long-distance chatroom romance, during which the handsome teenager was soon telling Emily she was perfect, with beautiful eyes and hair.

His internet messages saying ‘I love you’ and ‘I can’t stop thinking about you’ were music to the ears of a girl who fretted about her weight and suffered from the chronic skin condition, eczema.

Emily, now 15, says: ‘I’d never been in a proper relationship or done well with boys, so to be told I was really nice looking made me feel so happy. When he said he loved me, I wanted to scream it from the rooftops.’

Indeed, Emily did tell everyone, proudly showing pictures of her new boyfriend — who told her his name was Matt — to her family and friends at school in her home town of Market Harborough in Leicestershire.

Only Matt didn’t exist. To Emily’s acute distress and embarrassment, her dream boyfriend turned out to be girl called Chloe; a fact she discovered only after they’d met up for the first time in October 2010.

By then Emily had held hands with ‘Matt’, hugged ‘him’ and allowed her new ‘boyfriend’ to briefly kiss her. It is now 18 months since the day all Emily’s dreams were ‘shattered’ in what she describes as ‘the worst thing that has ever happened to me’. She has tried to put it behind her, but the memories flooded back last week following the conviction of Gemma Barker, another girl who pretended to be a boy on internet sites.

In contrast, Emily’s ‘boyfriend’ Matt — in reality a 16-year-old girl from Surrey — has never been charged, and this week was still to be found on certain internet networking sites, including Twitter, pretending to be a boy.

When Emily’s parents called the police, they were told no offence had been committed as no sexual assault had taken place. It is not against the law for a girl to dress as a boy, or indeed to create a false internet profile. ‘It is amazing that there is no law to stop people from creating a fake identity in this way and then using it to deceive someone else,’ says Emily’s mother Julia, 48, a personal trainer.

‘At which point can the police prosecute? Do they have to wait for more inappropriate behaviour? This has absolutely shattered my daughter emotionally.’

Emily and her mother have agreed to speak out to warn other girls of the dangers of being taken in by fake internet profiles, even when parents do everything in their power to protect their children from harm.

For even Emily’s cautious parents were initially fooled. Not content to judge their daughter’s relationship with ‘Matt’ on pictures alone, Emily’s parents permitted the internet friendship only after first checking that Emily’s crush wasn’t actually some predatory older man posing as a teenager.

They spoke to ‘him’ on the phone, saw ‘him’ on their laptop webcam and vetted his messages for sexual content, but found nothing untoward. As Julia says, it seemed like a ‘harmless penpal relationship’ and seeing their daughter blossom under the intense light of ‘Matt’s’ attention was a delight to witness.

Emily says: ‘I had a very low opinion of myself at the time, so for Matt to find me attractive was amazing. I told all my friends at school and showed them his picture. Matt told me, “one day I want to marry you”. It was so perfect.’

After five months chatting online, the teenagers arranged to meet up at Market Harborough train station during the school summer holidays in 2010. Julia says: ‘I was fine with her meeting Matt, provided we met him, too.’

Emily arrived at the station with two friends for safety, and Julia planned to meet them all once ‘Matt’ had arrived. He never showed up.

‘I felt like a fool,’ says Emily, who has two older brothers, Oliver, 22, and Edward, 20. I was so angry, but when I contacted him afterwards he told me he had a phobia of trains and was scared. I was so head over heels in love with Matt, I would have believed anything he said.’

Emily and Matt arranged to meet again during the October half-term. This time Emily’s father Ian, 47, a driver, took her to the station to meet Matt, who was dropped off by car by his grandmother and auntie. Matt certainly looked like a typical teenage boy in his checked shirt and baggy jeans, but Ian was suspicious.

Julia recalls: ‘Ian phoned me and said, “I need you to get here as quickly as possible, there’s something not quite right”. I rushed to the station in a panic to find Emily in the car and Matt sitting on the pavement with his head in his hands.

‘Ian came over to me and said: “I think it’s a girl, it’s not a boy” and I said: “What on earth makes you think that?” and he told me Matt’s auntie had said: “I hope she behaves herself,” before driving off. I knelt down beside Matt, and said: “Ian’s got a bit of a problem, I know this is really embarrassing, but can you tell me what your name is?”. He said “Matt”, and when I asked why his auntie had said “she”, Matt explained he had a twin sister and his auntie kept getting them confused. I kept looking at Matt and it was really hard to tell. I thought: “You look like a boy”. In the car we kept asking questions and that’s when Matt told us his sister Chloe was his twin. Stupid as it sounds, I believed him. Emily didn’t have any suspicions at all, and was so embarrassed.’

That afternoon, Julia and Ian took Emily, her friend and Matt to the park to walk the family’s dogs and, at one point, the three teenagers ran off together. It was then, away from the watchful eyes of parents, that Emily says Matt kissed her. But by then, Julia and Ian were becoming more convinced that Matt really was a girl.

‘It was a windy day,’ says Julia. ‘And as the wind blew the heavy fringe away from his face, I thought: “I can definitely see a girl in you now,”’ says Julia. ‘But what could we do? We couldn’t just abandon her or turf her out because she was only 15 and her gran wasn’t due to pick her up until 6pm. Even though I was upset, angry, annoyed, I felt responsible for her.

‘I didn’t want Matt alone with Emily because my daughter was in total denial and I didn’t want any more kissing, so we watched them like hawks. Heaven knows what might have happened if Emily had met Matt alone. I would have been absolutely mortified if there had been any touching.’

At 6pm, the Marabellas drove Matt back to the station to be collected by his grandmother and auntie. 'I’ve never seen anyone run away so quickly, the car hadn’t even had time to stop. Matt was desperate to get away from us,’ says Julia. ‘I ran after Matt because I was angry and upset and I felt desperately sorry for Emily that he hadn’t said goodbye, so before they could all zoom off, I stopped their car. ‘The elderly aunt and grandma were sitting there and they asked: “Has she behaved herself?” I was so dumbfounded. I just didn’t know what to say because they clearly didn’t have a clue. Then, they turned round and said: “I hope you have been a good girl, Chloe,” and I felt physically sick and incredibly foolish. I was too shocked to say anything. I went back to our car and said: “Oh my God, Ian, Emily, it’s a definitely a girl,” and that’s when Emily’s world fell apart.’

Emily continues: ‘I burst into tears, saying: “No, it can’t be,” because I still loved this person. I just didn’t want to believe it, because you can’t go straight from loving someone to hating them. I couldn’t think of life without this person.’

That evening, Emily messaged Matt, demanding answers.

‘I told Matt: “I know you are a girl,” but Matt denied it and still insisted she was a boy and that Chloe was her twin sister,’ says Emily, who immediately ceased all contact. I felt I’d lost absolutely everything. No one could understand how I felt. It’s the most horrible thing I’ve ever been through in my life. Even now, it still haunts me.’

As well as contacting the police, Julia reported the case to various internet sites in the hope of blocking “Matt’s” profile, but because no criminal offence has been committed, there was apparently nothing that could be done to stop it.

‘There may be no offence being committed, but to me the deception is still there,’ says Julia. ‘Just because “Matt” is a teenage girl and isn’t a 40-year-old man doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. I have no idea what is going on in this girl’s head, but she must need some form of psychological help if she has to pretend to be a boy. Since this has happened Emily’s whole attitude, her behaviour, her whole perception of boys, her trust, have all been changed. She became introverted and depressed, saying: “No one will find me attractive now. I can only get a girl, not a boy.” Her eczema flared up so badly, her school thought she was self-harming because she’d scratched her skin raw.’ Emily adds: ‘The day Matt became Chloe, I changed from the nicest person to someone who just doesn’t care any more.’

When the Mail spoke to Chloe/Matt’s 76-year-old grandmother, with whom the teenager lives, she said Chloe had been deeply affected by her grandfather’s death in 2009, which had triggered an episode of deep depression.

She added that Chloe’s parents split up when she was three, and that her granddaughter came to live with her when Chloe’s mother couldn’t cope with the child’s challenging behaviour.

‘Since all this happened, Chloe is being treated for depression and is now doing well again,’ said the grandmother, who admits she is not computer literate and therefore had no idea that Chloe was — and still is — posing on internet chatrooms as a boy.

The day after we spoke to Chloe’s grandmother the Facebook profile for “Matt” was taken down, although it remained on another site.

‘She’s a good girl and behaving herself now. We’ve explained to her that she will get into trouble with the police if she continues to pretend to be someone else, which I think she understands. She was very close to her grandfather, and when he died she became depressed and just didn’t want to be herself any more. She just wanted to be someone else.’

■ Some names have been changed for legal reasons.

original article here

Another Woman Raped by Person She Met Online

By Leon Watson

Internet daters have been warned after a legal secretary was raped by a man she met on a popular dating website.

Peter Ramsey, 26, beat the woman to the ground, ripped off her tights and had sex with her when she refused him a goodnight kiss at her front door. Ramsey punched the 27-year-old repeatedly knocking out one of her front teeth and left her with 21 injuries. Her facial wounds were among the most shocking detectives investigating the case had ever seen.

The sex attacker was caught after using the victim's Oyster travelcard to board a nightbus within minutes of the attack in Clapham, south west London.

Ramsey and the woman had spent four days chatting on plentyoffish.com site which claims on its homepage to be 'responsible for more dates and more relationships than any other dating site'. They arranged to meet for drinks in Brixton town centre at 7pm.

She later said: 'He seemed like a nice guy. The date was going very well. I thought we had a lot in common.' In the early hours of August 27 last year they went for something to eat before climbing into a cab to her flat near Clapham Common. She believed he was going to walk her to her front door but when he lent in for a kiss and she pulled back, he 'switched'.

In the communal entrance to the block, he pinned her against the wall and rained down punches on her face until she slumped to the ground. When she screamed for help he used one hand to cover her mouth and pinch her nose shut, while continuing to hit her with the other fist. 'I thought I was going to die,' she told Inner London Crown Court.


A 'SEVERE RISK' TO WOMEN

Outside court DC Huggins praised the SOIT role which was crucial in securing the conviction. He said of the result: 'I feel relieved that somebody like Ramsey who had access via the internet to so many women, is now safely behind bars.

'He posed a severe risk to other women on that internet site, which he had been using for a number of years. I would urge people using dating websites to thoroughly vet the people they meet and before they spend time alone. I would also like to thank my SOIT officer, who had the initial contact with the victim. I would like to reassure other potential victims that there are people who are willing to listen to them and take their allegations very seriously in order to bring the perpetrator to justice.

'The victim in this case is relieved about the verdict. She was also concerned for other women and that if he had walked free, there would have been other victims. This woman was unrecognisable after the attack, compared to the woman who gave evidence. Fortunately she has recovered from her physical injuries. I have been in the police for 14 years and these were some of the most shocking facial injuries I have ever seen.'

Ramsey, who has several previous convictions for shoplifting and assaulting police officers, but none for violence or sexual offences against women, then stole the bleeding woman's bag.

As he left she staggered to her feet and called to a passing man, a Muslim on his way to Ramadan prayers, and he came to her aid. The victim's mother, who had heard the screams, also rushed out to find her disfigured and traumatised daughter.

In a further insult, before Ramsey fled, he said to the pedestrian of the two women: 'Don't worry about them - they're crazy.' The rapist then used the woman's stolen Oyster card on a passing N35 bus.

The following day he left two voicemails on the victim's mobile telling her he was sorry and had now sobered up. He said he was left feeling something had happened that 'wasn't good'.

Soon after her ordeal the woman was interviewed by a specialist SOIT (Sexual Offences Interview Technique) officer from Lambeth's Sapphire Unit. PC Damien Hutton-Baber worked closely with the victim to get her detailed account, an interview which was filmed and played to the jury to reduce her time in the witness box.

Ramsey was arrested a week after the attack when a DNA match appeared to have snared him. But when he lied he had not even met the woman on that day, officers were forced to dig deeper. DC Richard Huggins, the officer in charge of the investigation, examined CCTV footage from the bus which showed him on board near the scene.

Ramsey continued to deny the rape, changing his story at trial. He put forward the defence he had consensual sex with the woman but left her rowing with another man who must have beat her.

Ramsey boasted said he had been out with 'hundreds of women' and did not need to rape because he could get anyone he wanted. But he was found unanimously guilty following a trial.

Ramsey, of no fixed address but who had been staying with friends in Forest Hill, south east London, was convicted of rape, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and theft.

Following the verdicts Judge Patricia Lees said: 'I would like an assessment of the defendant's future risk that he may pose to women. It seems to me the violence meted out was frankly horrific and wholly unnecessary to commit the offence of rape.'

Remanding him in custody ahead of sentence on April 27, Judge Lees warned him: 'You face an extremely lengthy sentence of imprisonment.' The court heard Ramsey has been diagnosed as biopolar while on remand.

original article here