The Poor 'Cyberpath' Feels Threatened

by Kathy Krajco

(We have replaced the word 'narcissist' with Cyberpath, since a Cyberpath is usually a destructive narcissist; among other things - EOPC)



Let's take a look at this line that cyberpaths aren't really bad, that they lash out at you because they feel "threatened."

This idea begs the question "Threatened in what way?" and "Threatened by what?"

If you're the victim of a cyberpath, you know that this "threatened" excuse is a farce, because the cyberpath attacks precisely when you are anti-threatening him or her. Like when you are trying please them, when you are saying you love them, when they are already mad at you and you are trying to appease them, when you try to get them to listen to you.

WHAM – you expect the normal reaction to these friendly behaviors, but what do you get instead? The PERVERTED reaction of an attack. It's a shock tactic that takes you aback and makes you have to pinch yourself.

What on earth have you done to "threaten" the poor cyberpath?

Let's look at the last example – trying to get him to listen to you.

By doing that, you ARE "threatening" him, I'm afraid. Yes.

Correction: No, you are not threatening him; you are threatening the imaginary him, the bogus "him." You're threatening his delusions of grandeur.

ANY honesty or reality does. Remember that he is a mental child playing Pretend, and she wants all his 'playmates' to play along. That means you are supposed to follow his script. You are supposed to act unworthy of her attention or regard. When you don't play that part, he stomps her little foot at you and gets mad, throwing a temper tantrum to be so obnoxious that you give in and do what he wants.

In his self-deluding game of Let's Play Pretend, he is so far superior to you that you are beneath his notice, at the relative level of some worm or bug with respect to him. He's something divine; he should look down his nose in contempt at you.

And, you had better act the part or he will go off at you. But here you are, acting like he owes you his attention. In other words, you're acting like God Almighty's equal.

Oh, how horrible an insult to God Almighty!!! Shame on you! You - a mere bug, a mere worm - are "threatening" her majesty by treating him as your equal! Quit "threatening" his delusions of divinity, you mean and naughty person.

The same is true for the example of telling him you love him, for in a profession of love is an implicit call for love in return. Oh, what a horrible attack on his godhead with respect to a mere bug, a mere worm like you! You are treating him as your equal. What an insult!


So, don't let the addle-headed know-it-alls confuse you. You are not threatening the poor cyberpath. The cyberpath is just a pervert = someone who perverts the course of logic to pervert reality. Hence, he pervertedly views love or affection or any call for engagement from him as its very opposite = a "threat."

His Perverted Thinking Machine is not your fault or your problem. It's his fault and his problem. He is not really threatened by you acting like his equal.

In other words, he isn't fighting back against any injury or threat: he is just an aggressor targeting vulnerable prey. That is, he's abusing you to feed his ego.

To blame you for what he does to you, by saying that that you are thus "threatening" him, is as crazy as it would be to blame a lamb for "threatening" a wolf by running away when the hungry wolf feels a need to eat said lamb.

But the so-called experts cannot seem to get it through their thick heads that there is a fundamental difference between fighting others and eating them – between fighting and predation. Though they Play Pretend that they are the only ones qualified to express an opinion on the matter, they are actually the least knowledgeable and qualified, because they know nothing but what they have read in speculative essays by others just as ignorant and whatever lines cyberpaths on their couches have fed these collective speculators. Both individually and collectively they have almost no experience with real cyberpaths, let alone any real-world experience with them. And they haven't even solicited information from victims of cyberpaths. So, how could they possibly know what they are talking about?

Trust your own observations. Reason from facts to conclusions, not backwards, and you will learn what you need to know.

All animals occasionally fight others (including others of their own species) when those others cross boundaries to threaten their interests in some way. You can tell when this is the motive, because the moment the aggressor backs off the fighting stops, and everybody's cool again.


Why? Because when you feel threatened, your motive is to repulse the threat = self-defense. Once you have accomplished that mission, you are done.

But when your motive is to destroy the other, the other party backing down or trying to appease you has the opposite effect. Then it's a sign of weakness that just emboldens the attacker to pour on the attack more furiously than ever.

That's why when an animal attacks to eat another, it doesn't stop till it has ripped that other to shreds. That's what human predators (like psychopaths and other narcissists) do to their prey, as well.

The only way to avoid "threatening" these perverts is to just get and stay far away from them.

ORIGINAL: The Poor Narcissist Feels Threatened

(while this article uses the male gender - your cyberpath can be female)

Online Crimes of Fake Soldier Go Unpunished

By the time Cari Johnson caught wind of a Lebanon (OHIO) man’s online scam, victims in California, Connecticut and Texas already had sent him laptop computers, keys to their homes, personal photos and care packages they believed were headed to American soldiers serving overseas.

But the case of James E. Middleton, 47, of Ohio, demonstrates problems with cybercrime investigations, which cross multiple federal and state jurisdictions and present other dilemmas for investigators used to fighting land-based crimes. As a result, authorities have declined to pursue criminal charges against Middleton even though he admitted to scamming people.

“Where did this occur? It’s not like somebody broke into your house and you can take fingerprints,” said Sgt. Jeff Mitchell of the Lebanon Police Department, which declined to charge Middleton.

Confronted in January by his victims and a police investigation, Middleton said he took responsibility for his misdeeds and blamed his actions on loneliness and agoraphobia, and the companionship and calming effects he gained in relationships built over more than a year with victims nationwide.

He tricked donors into believing he was three different soldiers, including a female. He has since returned some of the items or reimbursed his victims. “Maybe it’ll help somebody else to realize how something that starts out so small can go so totally out of whack,” Middleton said in an interview with the Dayton Daily News.

The FBI’s Cybercrime Division is the top U.S. law enforcement agency charged with fighting online scams. Cases like Middleton’s rank far below a long list of FBI priorities topped by protecting the country from terrorists attacks, foreign intelligence operations and espionage, cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

“Is ( Middleton’s case) going to be something the FBI can devote its resources to? Probably not,” Washington-based FBI spokeswoman Jenny Shearer said. The inadequacy of the existing cybercrime law enforcement is the focus of continued global discussion.

In January, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime convened a meeting of international experts in Austria “with a view to examining options to strengthen existing and to propose new national and international legal or other responses to cybercrime.” In America, the FBI works with National White Collar Crime Center, a non-profit organization that tracks cybercrime rates and teaches law enforcement officials the latest techniques. The center and FBI, in partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, formed the Internet Complaint Call Center about 10 years ago.

“What is unique about Internet crime is that a perpetrator can live in one state and perpetrate a crime in many other states. They cross jurisdictional boundaries,” said spokesman John Everett with the National White Collar Crime Center. Criminal justice in cyberspace Lebanon police said they were unable to prosecute Middleton, in part because the victims lived in three other states. A federal postal inspector said Middleton’s alleged crimes did not involve the U.S. mail system.

“It really irks me that nothing can be done,” said Johnson, who runs A Dollar to Care, a charity for soldiers and their families, from her home in Riverside. Her son, Dominic Johnson, is a military policeman with the Ohio National Guard. Middleton lives with his teenage daughter, and they share a personal computer. During an interview at his apartment, he said he had learned his lesson. “If I ever felt the want to do that, I would just get rid of my computer,” he said.

Multiple false soldier identities In a case involving a California victim, Middleton acted as a fictitious female soldier, Amy Anderson. For a Texas woman, he was soldier, Michael Wolfe. For a Connecticut woman, he was soldier Jason “Thumper” Hayes. In all three cases, Middleton had the victims send him care packages, believing he would get them to their special soldier through his fake connections at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Middleton met his victims in chat rooms on JustinTV.com, a website where people can post videos and pictures, request and listen to music, and engage in real-time chats.

Middleton said he began entering the chat rooms as fictitious soldiers to get noticed. “In my heart I knew I was wrong but I thought if I entered the room as a soldier it would be better and more people would want to talk to me,” he said in a statement to police.

Jennifer Schmitz of San Antonio, Texas, said she fell in love with soldier “Wolfe” after online communications and receiving love letters actually written by Middleton during a two-year period. “This was someone I put my life on hold for,” she said in a telephone interview. Acting as Wolfe, Middleton said he encouraged Schmitz to send him care packages and wrote her love letters. When Schmitz confronted Middleton by phone, “he said actually, ‘I’m in love with you,’” she said.

Middleton usually favored pretending to be “Thumper” when he communicated with Sheila O’Leary in Connecticut. However, she said Middleton pretended to be 21 different soldiers, as well as himself, during more than a year of contact. “I talked with all of them,” O’Leary said. “This was not his first time doing this.”

Middleton’s third victim, a California man whom he duped to believing he was a female soldier, declined to comment. Johnson said she became aware of Middleton through friendships she built online with the victims. She said her charity has a network of more than 5,000 soldiers and military supporters. Standing up for soldiers “Ninety-five percent of my postings, everything I type, usually is centered around the military or veterans,” she said. Johnson discovered Middleton was using photos of people in uniform to bolster his fake identities. “That’s what really made my blood boil,” she said. Johnson said Middleton should have been charged with crimes, including the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that bars individuals from falsifying their military service. The law is in limbo due to constitutional challenges in three states.

Johnson said she is concerned that Middleton and others who get away with their scams will continue their alleged cybercriminal activities. ‘If they’re successful and they don’t get caught, what’s going to stop them?” Johnson said. “You can go online and pretend you are whatever or whoever you want to be.” Lebanon police said their investigation was hobbled by the advanced state of the case when Johnson notified them. “Mr. Middleton and these people pretty much had it worked out between themselves before we caught up,” Mitchell said.

Middleton said he began the scam following the deaths of his mother and other relatives. He said he was driven by loneliness that fed the agoraphobia he has suffered from for 16 years. “I started out, oddly enough, as a female,” he said. “It just absolutely snowballed.”

Middleton said his only military experience was when he twice failed to complete basic training at Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. He also learned military terminology aiding him in pretending to be a soldier from family members. “I’ve had family members in almost every branch except the Coast Guard,” he added.

Since these incidents, Middleton said he goes online only to check the weather and look at maps. He said he no longer visits social networking sites. “I don’t enjoy the computer anymore,” he said, adding that new medication is helping deal with his mental issues. Still Middleton said he felt he deserved to be punished. “That part I still have no answer to,” he said. “How do you morally repay someone?”

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

Romance Scammers using Fake Webcam Footage

By Pat Williams

A new evolution in romance scams is about to create tens of thousands of new victims. Online Dating Magazine reports that scammers are now using fake Webcam footage to convincingly deceive victims.

Here’s how it works:

First, the scammer spends weeks inside Webcam chat rooms recording footage of an unsuspecting person on different days. The person being recorded doesn’t know they are communicating with a scammer.

The scammer then tries to deceptively obtain photos of the unsuspecting person by email. The scammer may also find photos on Facebook or via online searches.

Finally, armed with photos and multiple days of Webcam footage of the unsuspecting person, the scammer creates a fake online dating profile to lure victims.

“Up until now scams would consist of communication via an online dating service followed by emails and phone calls,” says Joe Tracy, publisher of Online Dating Magazine. “Now scammers can initiate fake Webcam chats with you to further make you believe the lie. They have full control over the footage. They can pause it, make it jump to a point where the person is laughing, type when the person is typing, etc. It comes off as very realistic and impressive.”

Tracy says that this new scam is creating two types of victims: the person being scammed, and the person who was recorded by Webcam and doesn’t realize their footage is being used in scams.

Imagine a guy named Andrew having a Webcam chat with someone he believes is a 28-year-old traveling businesswoman. The scammer memorizes the illicit video and bookmarks, in advance, certain parts of the video for quick access. So Andrew may see a woman in the Webcam typing while the scammer types, “Andrew, look at this new dress I got today.” The video of the woman in the Webcam then stands up to show off the dress. There’s now no doubt in Andrew’s mind that the person he is chatting with is real when in reality it is someone completely different. It’s possible to have a Webcam chat with the “person” on 18 different occasions and they are wearing 18 different outfits. That’s how elaborate this new scam has become.

Tracy warns that the scam can be taken further, with scammers using recorded Webcam sessions of their victim to scam someone else after they’ve gotten the victim’s money.

“This has taken the romance scam to an entirely new level,” says Tracy. “Word needs to get out quickly to warn people about this new development.”

Tracy says that the best way to test whether you are Webcam chatting with a scammer is to innocently ask them to do something and see if they react. For example, type, “What’s that crawling on the wall behind you?” If the person “pauses” or doesn’t look, then that’s a major red flag. When asked to do something they don’t have footage recorded of, scammers will pause the Webcam video and attribute it to a communication problem while answering your question in the chat window.

Online romance scams are the most successful of all online scams, costing victims worldwide hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

“Some of these scam organizations are making more money that the big online dating services,” says Tracy. “It’s important to warn people so that they don’t fall prey to these elaborate schemes.”

original article here

Facebook Scams of Narcissists

By Samuel López De Victoria, Ph.D.

Did you know that if you spend time at social network websites like Facebook you
might be a narcissist?

Of course not everyone who uses Facebook is one. A recent study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Buffardi and Cambell, 2008) found how social networking web sites such as Facebook can attract narcissists. Here are some of the positive traits narcissists can exhibit:

1. Initially likable.
2. Perceived as leaders.
3. Perceived as exciting.
4. Perceived as entertaining.
5. The capability to obtain sexual partners.

Narcissists can give the illusion of closeness, having empathy, and warmth yet they also are relational opportunists. They use their relationships to enhance themselves. In other words, they can be “show-offs.”

Narcissists are also known to be controllers, manipulators, aggressive, unfaithful, and given to playing mind-games.

The study reveals that social network websites can serve as a place to be shallow and not committed. Friendships can be superficial. These types of websites provide a forum where the narcissist can exercise high control of how he/she is perceived giving an edited image. Narcissists love to look at themselves, talk about themselves… any way they can be the center of the universe. One observation was that narcissists tend to post many pictures of themselves with others and at parties.

Other characteristics which raters evaluated were the amount of clothing worn versus modesty and physical presentation. They also considered if they were portrayed as fun, provocative, self-promoting, sexy, and self-centered. Narcissists tended to present themselves as important through the expression of their opinions. (sounds like Beckstead, Capers & Dunetz) Their ability to persuade others enhanced their perceived image.

In the end, the study appears to show that narcissism is associated with such things as self-promotion, sexiness, attractiveness, and provocative pictures of themselves (this includes action shots of them doing some sort of sport or athletic activity).

The study could imply that websites such as Facebook may contain high numbers of narcissists because of easy access to having a large social network. Social networking websites can provide narcissists with forums where they pursue their addiction to grandiosity while maintaining shallow relationships. These sites can be fertile grounds for the narcissist to work in. Those looking for love and romance on these social sites need to be aware of the scams of a narcissist in a relationship that could end up extremely painful over time.


Reference
Buffardi, L. E., & Campell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303+.

original article here

Another Online "Love" Connection Turns Ugly

By NBC10 Investigators

View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com.

Kristy Gaffney says she thought she’d found love when she met a man online. Now the Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania woman claims she’s in the battle of her life – fighting for the child they had.

“I thought like he was Mr. Perfect, ha, ha,” Gaffney told NBC10 Investigator Harry Hairston. “There’s no words for it. I’m just so angry at him.”

Gaffney says she met a man who told her he was Ed while surfing a popular dating website. The single mother, who is 29, says at first she was standoffish, but eventually warmed up to meeting him at a public place. Gaffney says that first date was at a restaurant just outside of Philadelphia and it led to many more dates and an intimate relationship.

Gaffney says her new love interest told her he was a businessman, divorced, worked for the C.I.A. and was related to one of the most well-known, wealthiest families in the country.

“He said, ‘My last name is Dupont,’ and I’m like, okay. And I said, ‘related to the Duponts?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’” Gaffney says eventually Ed started talking about wedding bells. “He also was talking about having kids. He said he never could have kids because him and his wife, she couldn’t get pregnant,” Gaffney says.

As their relationship continued, Gaffney got pregnant. She says at first Ed demanded she get an abortion and then changed his mind. After the baby was born, Gaffney says Ed asked her to sign some papers that would ensure he could claim his rights as the baby’s father. Gaffney says although she didn’t understand the paperwork, she signed it anyway and the two shared caring for the baby while Ed rehabbed his home so they could all live together as a family.

One day, Ed didn’t return their child as planned. Instead, Gaffney says he dropped this bombshell:

“That’s when he told me that the paperwork I actually signed was me giving up the rights, not to him to have his rights. It was me giving up my rights so his wife could adopt my baby, and I said, ‘Are you kidding me?’”

As it turned out, Ed wasn’t Ed Dupont. He was Emmitt Dippold, who was still married and he and his wife were in the final stages of adopting the baby.

“I couldn’t even believe that someone was capable of something like that,” Gaffney says. She took Dippold and his wife to court to get the adoption overturned.

We reached out to Dippold at his office and his home for his side of the story, but were not able to speak with him. In court documents, Dippold denied that he ever claimed to be a Dupont and says Gaffney may have assumed that because his email reads ‘ew-dupont.’ Dippold denied that he ever wanted Gaffney to have an abortion and denied that he ever talk about marriage. He said Gaffney should have known all along that he was married because pictures of he and his wife were in plain view the times he and Gaffney were in his home together.

In the end, the Judge believed Gaffney and overturned the adoption based on fraud. But the fight isn’t over because the Dippolds filed an appeal. Dippold’s attorney declined comment for our story, saying it’s inappropriate to talk about pending custody and adoption matters.

original article here

Jailed for Facebook Threats

A Fort Myers man is accused of cyberstalking two former co-workers using Facebook – and threatening their lives. Lee County deputies say the suspect created several fake Facebook accounts to make the threats. One of the victims said she feared for her life.

Jacobe Swanson was arrested and charged with threatening to kill or injure two women. The written threats were made on a popular social networking site Facebook.

"He had been threatening me for a long time," said one of the victims.

She said Swanson began stalking her two years ago.

"We were coworkers and nothing more. He showed interest in me and I rejected him and he decided he would start harassing me because I wouldn't give him the time of day," the victim said.

Swanson allegedly left threatening notes on her car.

Then he allegedly began stalking her and another former female coworker online.

"There were pretty horrific threats made against them like they were going to die. They were afraid to go to work and now he's going to face the consequences for that," said Sergeant Stephanie Eller of the Lee County Sheriff's Office.

According to the arrest report, Swanson threatened to chop off the head of one of the victims with a machete, then kill everyone in her house.

Swanson allegedly threatened the other woman saying "She was going to die either at home or at her job" and that she would die soon.

Detectives subpoenaed Facebook for the I.P. address associated with the threatening messages.

That address came back to the Fort Myers home where Swanson lives with his mom.

No one answered the door at Swanson's home.

Swanson is still in jail, where his victims hope he will stay for a long time.

"I hope he gets time for it and I hope he gets some psychiatric help because I believe he needs it," the victim said.

Swanson has been charged with aggravated stalking, intimidation (write, send threat to kill or injure) and contempt of court (violation injunction).


original article here

Vulnerable & Scammed - Man Commits Suicide

(U.K.) When lonely divorcee Philip Hunt fell for a beautiful woman on an internet dating site he thought all his prayers had been answered.

She convinced him she was young, fabulously rich and if he could help transfer $2.9million from Nigeria to the UK then they could start a new life together, an inquest heard today.

Unfortunately it was all an elaborate scam that would cost Mr Hunt £82,000 and ultimately his life.

The 58-year-old was hooked on the fantasy of a future with the stunning 'Rose' and he willingly paid out tens of thousands of pounds to help her beat malaria and get her funds through customs and into the UK.

The cargo officer remortgaged his house, took out loans, ran up overdrafts and begged for cash from his employers after repeatedly transferring money across to the fraudsters' account.

Eventually he became so hopelessly mired in debt that he committed suicide by lying down in front of a train.

Although warned by a former girlfriend that he was the victim of a 'scam', Mr Hunt appeared to believe in Rose until the very end.

His mobile phone was found in a rucksack near his body and a text message to Rose - which was never sent - read: 'I'm cold, lonely and depressed, I'm so lonely without you tonight. Going to meet my maker..'

Twice-married Mr Hunt went online in search of love after splitting up with girlfriend of three years Lesley Smith. He began exchanging texts and emails with Rose, who claimed to be living in Nigeria. She sent him a picture of herself and he quickly fell in love with the attractive white brunette. Over the months that followed Mr Hunt was tricked into thinking Rose was seriously ill and in desperate need of his help. The prize was the rest of his life with her and her cash.

Each time he came close to arranging a meeting with 'Rose' the anonymous criminals behind the 'romance scam' demanded further cash for hotels, medical bills and travel expenses to the UK. He even travelled to London to meet two of the fraudsters who claimed they needed money for an expensive solution which would magically turn scrap paper into $100 bills.

Mr Hunt met two 'agents' at the Travelodge near London's City Airport. He was greeted by two large men who opened a case containing scraps of black and grey paper. One of the men then sprayed a note with a mystery substance which seemed to turn the filthy paper into a $100 in front of his eyes - convincing him to hand over more money to pay for the chemical spray.

Mr Hunt began wiring over money in December 2008. At one stage he asked to borrow £25,000 from his employer, a shipping company at Immingham Docks, but later retracted the request and resigned from his job.

His last contact with the fraudsters was in June last year and he died on August 13 when he was hit by a train and suffered multiple injuries.

Police investigating his death found a handwritten note at his home in Grimsby addressed to them, which read: 'I just can't take it any more.' They also found bundles of emails outlining the huge scale of the fraud and a message predicting his own suicide. He wrote: 'I have insurmountable debts and will take my own life.'

A jury at the inquest in Hull returned a verdict of suicide.

After the hearing former girlfriend Miss Smith said: 'These people are out to get people when they are very vulnerable, they are like vultures. I'd like to alert people to this so they can be aware and be cautious. Philip was a quiet and reserved gentleman, and he was very intelligent which makes it all the more unbelievable that he fell for this, but he was at a low ebb and they got him when he was most vulnerable.'

Detective Chief Inspector Danny Snee, of British Transport Police, said: 'People need to be very wary, if something looks too good to be true it usually is. They should be particularly wary about parting with money with someone they have never met, it just doesn't ring true. The demands for money for supposed medical bills, hotel bills and travel expenses were endless.'

He said a criminal investigation into the international fraudsters was ongoing, although no arrests have been made.

original article found here

130 Difference Facebook Profiles?

(U.S.A.) ...this is one situation that takes the cake in “crazy ex” stories. Reported today is the prosecution of 22 year old Los Angeles resident, Jesus Felix, who created — wait for it — 130 different Facebook pages in order to harass his 16 year old ex-girlfriend. Wow.

On facing two counts of California’s new Internet impersonation law — in effect January 1st – and one count of making harassing telephone calls, Felix has pleaded “No contest”. In fact, he has only narrowly dodged a one-year jail time sentence by agreeing to take anger management and sex therapy classes, two things that are clearly in his best interest. He is also now saddled with a five year probation, along with 30 days of road crew service.

Prosecutors say in a news release that Felix created Facebook pages and Craigslist listings using photos of his ex-girlfriend. The girl’s mother discovered online profiles with her daughter’s contact information as well as sexually explicit photos.

original article found here

Posing as Soldiers Online, Stealing Women’s Hearts & Money

Think twice before falling for that hot soldier stationed in Iraq, says the U.S. Army - especially if you met him on a dating website.

It’s rather easy to spot and avoid those Nigerian-prince email scams, but hundreds of women have been falling prey to this more sophisticated “romance scam,” reports Jezebel.

In this type of plot, thieves take on the identities of actual servicemen based in Iraq or Afghanistan, grab a couple photos off the Internet of said soldier, and go to work scamming on social media based dating sites. The scammers start building relationships with women online, eventually asking them for money after wooing them and gaining their sympathy and trust. One woman fell so hard she sent $127,000 to her supposed military love.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) has issued several memos about the situation, including one last month, warning citizens to be “extra vigilant” and not fall for these impersonation frauds, “especially scams promising true love, but only end up breaking hearts and bank accounts.”

Victims tend to be unsuspecting women, 30 to 55 years old and the scammers are usually based in African countries and go to great lengths to make their email addresses untraceable and route accounts around the world. After manipulating their victim’s emotions, the scammer will ask for money in some rather creative ways: money to buy “leave papers,” to cover medical expenses, for a flight home to see their fake lover in person.

So, things to keep in mind when online dating?

One, it’s not real until you’ve met the person.
Two, “Don’t ever send money!” Remember, love don’t cost a thing.

read more here

original article found here

Wanna-Be SEALS & "Special Ops" Pretenders

When 65-year-old David Silbergeld was found dead in a quiet Delaware park -- the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head -- few familiar with his case were surprised. Silbergeld had become much maligned in the small Pennsylvania town where he had been an adjunct community college professor and something of a local celebrity. Silbergeld was fired from his job and found himself the target of federal scrutiny when it was revealed that his long-time claims of having been a Navy SEAL were fraudulent. Moreover, Silbergeld was receiving full V.A. disability as a result of ongoing symptoms stemming from his special-forces service in Vietnam.

In fact, Silbergeld, like thousands of other special-forces pretenders, had never enrolled or graduated from any military special forces school or program. Although he claimed to have killed eleven enemy troops in hand-to-hand combat, no evidence of any combat experience existed. At some point along the path in Silbergeld's grandiose fabrication, those familiar with real SEAL training became suspicious and David Silbergeld had the grave misfortune of becoming the focus of a veteran’s organization devoted to uncovering SEAL fakes. In short order, Silbergeld's lies were made public, his heroic house of cards collapsed, and he took a walk with a revolver rather than face the consequences of his sham.

In recent years, several special-forces watchdog groups have sprung up to combat the problem of phony SEALS and fraudulent medal winners. Wall Street Journal writer, Amy Chozick, recently showcased the work of two of these groups, AuthentiSEAL.org, and VeriSEAL.org. Both groups are run by genuine SEALs, mostly veterans who are sick and tired of hearing wannabe's claim membership in their elite fraternity. Both groups boast remarkable success in identifying frauds and their websites often contain extensive lists, even photos, of those they have outed as imposters. At times, these watchdog groups are tenacious in exposing the fakes to their families, employers, and communities. At present, AuthentiSEAL.org claims to have uncovered about 20,000 SEAL fakers. The tone of these organizations suggests a broad assumption that all fakers mean to diminish the glory of genuine SEALS and that all should be tracked down and humiliated. There is no record of the personal aftermath for their victims nor any body count ticker for suicides. It is unlikely that David Silbergeld was the first. He certainly won’t be the last.

The purpose of this short treatise on faux Navy SEALS is not to stick up for special-forces fakers, nor am I interested in questioning the motives or methods of those who hunt them down. As a former naval officer, I object to any deceit related to one’s military record and I hold particular admiration for colleagues who have what it takes to make it in the SEALS.

My objective is merely to broaden our perspective on the why question. Why fake a special-forces background? Too often we might assume that all fraudulent SEALS are malignant sociopaths bent on milking the SEAL ruse for all it’s worth. If we see these men as deliberately exploitive, lacking any conscience or remorse, and fundamentally criminal in the sense of using the fraud for immediate and tangible gain (e.g., cash, benefits, employment) then they might indeed meet diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) and severe consequences are easy to justify.

But experience suggests there are other "types" or clusters hidden in the population of would-be SEALS. In addition to old fashioned sociopathy, I propose that there are at least three other prominent motivations leading to SEAL (or Special Ops) faking.

First, there are the Narcissists. The Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by extreme egotism, arrogance, an unquenchable need for tribute and admiration, and an ongoing wish to be seen as special or unusual. True, the Narcissist is lying about his SEAL record just like the Antisocial, but his reasons are different. The Narcissist is using a SEAL persona to gratify profound needs for attention and may be uninterested in any tangible gain. Think of the Narcissistic fake SEAL as making a desperate attempt to compensate for his own sense of inadequacy; yes, Freud would say the man has SEAL envy. This type is so convinced of his own worthlessness that only perpetual adulation will ease the pain -- enter the SEAL.

A second, though considerably less common variety of faker is the traumatized veteran. Here we see a service member who actually did time in the service, and may have been involved in combat. He suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and may have related memory difficulties or in rare circumstances, psychotic symptoms. Very gradually, his service-related stories morph to incorporate affiliation with special-forces, unusual missions, or other false information. What part of this is deliberate and what part is more unconscious and linked to traumatic symptoms? In some cases, this is not at all clear.

A final profile among the ranks of faux SEALS is that of the utilitarian fibber. I suspect this may constitute one of the largest groups of special-forces frauds. The utilitarian fibber adopts a false SEAL persona only in isolated circumstances -- at least at first -- to get jobs, get friends, or to get laid. (this would apply to Barber, Thomas & Haberman)

One would not be surprised to see younger, less mature folks in this group. In this instance, the deceiver slings on the SEAL story like a cape, hoping to use the elite persona to leverage access to career advancement, social status, or perhaps just the sack. In contrast to the antisocial or the narcissist, expect this fake to fess up more readily when confronted; he has less to lose by coming clean.

Posing as a member of the special-forces is clearly illegal, not to mention upsetting for all of us who respect and admire the real thing. But remember that SEAL fakers are a varied bunch. While some are malignant; others are just pathetic. ...we should hold all of them accountable...

from: http://www.military.com

(This applies to our exposed predators: Phil Haberman, Nathan E.B. Thomas, Jr., Joseph Cafasso and William Michael Barber. (see list on upper right column of this blog and click the name for more information) While some didn't say they were SEALS, they did lie about their military involvements. Thomas even implied he was CIA and fighting the Taliban. LOL

Barber used his special military training to con his way into a job as a criminal investigator. Cafasso got the media to buy him as a "Terrorism Expert!"

The only terrorism these guys know is the emotional and mental lies they visit upon their hapless victims! - EOPC)

Wanna-Be SEALS & "Special Ops" Pretenders

When 65-year-old David Silbergeld was found dead in a quiet Delaware park -- the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head -- few familiar with his case were surprised. Silbergeld had become much maligned in the small Pennsylvania town where he had been an adjunct community college professor and something of a local celebrity. Silbergeld was fired from his job and found himself the target of federal scrutiny when it was revealed that his long-time claims of having been a Navy SEAL were fraudulent. Moreover, Silbergeld was receiving full V.A. disability as a result of ongoing symptoms stemming from his special-forces service in Vietnam.

In fact, Silbergeld, like thousands of other special-forces pretenders, had never enrolled or graduated from any military special forces school or program. Although he claimed to have killed eleven enemy troops in hand-to-hand combat, no evidence of any combat experience existed. At some point along the path in Silbergeld's grandiose fabrication, those familiar with real SEAL training became suspicious and David Silbergeld had the grave misfortune of becoming the focus of a veteran’s organization devoted to uncovering SEAL fakes. In short order, Silbergeld's lies were made public, his heroic house of cards collapsed, and he took a walk with a revolver rather than face the consequences of his sham.

In recent years, several special-forces watchdog groups have sprung up to combat the problem of phony SEALS and fraudulent medal winners. Wall Street Journal writer, Amy Chozick, recently showcased the work of two of these groups, AuthentiSEAL.org, and VeriSEAL.org. Both groups are run by genuine SEALs, mostly veterans who are sick and tired of hearing wannabe's claim membership in their elite fraternity. Both groups boast remarkable success in identifying frauds and their websites often contain extensive lists, even photos, of those they have outed as imposters. At times, these watchdog groups are tenacious in exposing the fakes to their families, employers, and communities. At present, AuthentiSEAL.org claims to have uncovered about 20,000 SEAL fakers. The tone of these organizations suggests a broad assumption that all fakers mean to diminish the glory of genuine SEALS and that all should be tracked down and humiliated. There is no record of the personal aftermath for their victims nor any body count ticker for suicides. It is unlikely that David Silbergeld was the first. He certainly won’t be the last.

The purpose of this short treatise on faux Navy SEALS is not to stick up for special-forces fakers, nor am I interested in questioning the motives or methods of those who hunt them down. As a former naval officer, I object to any deceit related to one’s military record and I hold particular admiration for colleagues who have what it takes to make it in the SEALS.

My objective is merely to broaden our perspective on the why question. Why fake a special-forces background? Too often we might assume that all fraudulent SEALS are malignant sociopaths bent on milking the SEAL ruse for all it’s worth. If we see these men as deliberately exploitive, lacking any conscience or remorse, and fundamentally criminal in the sense of using the fraud for immediate and tangible gain (e.g., cash, benefits, employment) then they might indeed meet diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) and severe consequences are easy to justify.

But experience suggests there are other "types" or clusters hidden in the population of would-be SEALS. In addition to old fashioned sociopathy, I propose that there are at least three other prominent motivations leading to SEAL (or Special Ops) faking.

First, there are the Narcissists. The Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by extreme egotism, arrogance, an unquenchable need for tribute and admiration, and an ongoing wish to be seen as special or unusual. True, the Narcissist is lying about his SEAL record just like the Antisocial, but his reasons are different. The Narcissist is using a SEAL persona to gratify profound needs for attention and may be uninterested in any tangible gain. Think of the Narcissistic fake SEAL as making a desperate attempt to compensate for his own sense of inadequacy; yes, Freud would say the man has SEAL envy. This type is so convinced of his own worthlessness that only perpetual adulation will ease the pain -- enter the SEAL.

A second, though considerably less common variety of faker is the traumatized veteran. Here we see a service member who actually did time in the service, and may have been involved in combat. He suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and may have related memory difficulties or in rare circumstances, psychotic symptoms. Very gradually, his service-related stories morph to incorporate affiliation with special-forces, unusual missions, or other false information. What part of this is deliberate and what part is more unconscious and linked to traumatic symptoms? In some cases, this is not at all clear.

A final profile among the ranks of faux SEALS is that of the utilitarian fibber. I suspect this may constitute one of the largest groups of special-forces frauds. The utilitarian fibber adopts a false SEAL persona only in isolated circumstances -- at least at first -- to get jobs, get friends, or to get laid. (this would apply to Barber, Thomas & Haberman)

One would not be surprised to see younger, less mature folks in this group. In this instance, the deceiver slings on the SEAL story like a cape, hoping to use the elite persona to leverage access to career advancement, social status, or perhaps just the sack. In contrast to the antisocial or the narcissist, expect this fake to fess up more readily when confronted; he has less to lose by coming clean.

Posing as a member of the special-forces is clearly illegal, not to mention upsetting for all of us who respect and admire the real thing. But remember that SEAL fakers are a varied bunch. While some are malignant; others are just pathetic. ...we should hold all of them accountable...

from: http://www.military.com

(This applies to our exposed predators: Phil Haberman, Nathan E.B. Thomas, Jr., Joseph Cafasso and William Michael Barber. (see list on upper right column of this blog and click the name for more information) While some didn't say they were SEALS, they did lie about their military involvements. Thomas even implied he was CIA and fighting the Taliban. LOL

Barber used his special military training to con his way into a job as a criminal investigator. Cafasso got the media to buy him as a "Terrorism Expert!"

The only terrorism these guys know is the emotional and mental lies they visit upon their hapless victims! - EOPC)

Match.Com Promises to Check for Sex Offenders

Match.com has decided to check members against a national registry of sex offenders following a lawsuit—though the company says the move is not in direct response to the suit.

A California entertainment executive sued for the action earlier this month after she was allegedly attacked by a Match.com member with a history of sex assault convictions.

The president of the popular online dating site said executives had earlier considered such screenings, but concluded that the registries were "historically unreliable."

But now, she said," a combination of improved technology and an improved database enables a sufficient degree of accuracy to move forward with this initiative."

Still, she said the company's new policy was no substitute for subscribers remaining vigilant on dates: "We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members." The policy will be implemented in the next 60 to 90 days.


(SO WHY ARE YOU STILL USING ONLINE DATING!??? - EOPC)

_____________________________________
(opinion - response:)

Match.com, Don't Bother Screening Sex Offenders
The effort may do more harm than good

By Evann Gastaldo

In response to a lawsuit, Match.com announced it will start checking its members against a national sex offender registry—but that's not news worth getting excited about, writes Benjamin Radford on LiveScience. "There are several obvious flaws with the plan," including the fact that members can register for the dating site using a fake name and someone else's address to avoid being matched. Even if members' identities and addresses were somehow verified, sex offender registries themselves "are notoriously unreliable."

Besides, Radford points out, statistically speaking, a person "is far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone who is not listed on any sex offender registry than a convicted sex offender."

So there are plenty of reasons why the cross-checking will be far from foolproof, but that won't prevent many women from having "a false sense of security" because of it, he concludes.

original article here

Match.Com Promises to Check for Sex Offenders

Match.com has decided to check members against a national registry of sex offenders following a lawsuit—though the company says the move is not in direct response to the suit.

A California entertainment executive sued for the action earlier this month after she was allegedly attacked by a Match.com member with a history of sex assault convictions.

The president of the popular online dating site said executives had earlier considered such screenings, but concluded that the registries were "historically unreliable."

But now, she said," a combination of improved technology and an improved database enables a sufficient degree of accuracy to move forward with this initiative."

Still, she said the company's new policy was no substitute for subscribers remaining vigilant on dates: "We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members." The policy will be implemented in the next 60 to 90 days.


(SO WHY ARE YOU STILL USING ONLINE DATING!??? - EOPC)

_____________________________________
(opinion - response:)

Match.com, Don't Bother Screening Sex Offenders
The effort may do more harm than good

By Evann Gastaldo

In response to a lawsuit, Match.com announced it will start checking its members against a national sex offender registry—but that's not news worth getting excited about, writes Benjamin Radford on LiveScience. "There are several obvious flaws with the plan," including the fact that members can register for the dating site using a fake name and someone else's address to avoid being matched. Even if members' identities and addresses were somehow verified, sex offender registries themselves "are notoriously unreliable."

Besides, Radford points out, statistically speaking, a person "is far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone who is not listed on any sex offender registry than a convicted sex offender."

So there are plenty of reasons why the cross-checking will be far from foolproof, but that won't prevent many women from having "a false sense of security" because of it, he concludes.

original article here