Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[Fluffykins]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Haha Gerbill has to wait months. Suck eggs.

Don't sleep Gerbill. Toss & turn and remember what a horrid swine you really are.

LOL TGY, made me laugh. Thanks for that!

 

[Fluffykins]

I'm wondering how this works. Do the High Court judges consult with one another and sound out each other's opinions before delivering their verdict? Or do they each go off on their own and review the evidence and make their own decisions, and then when all five have arrived at a decision, get together to announce their individual verdicts? I'm curious to know.

I'd also be curious to know what sort of a track record any of them have in ruling on DV. I checked out the links Fuskier posted for each judge (on p.64 - thank you Fusky) to see if there was any background about that, but nothing came to light immediately, and I gather you'd have to be prepared to put in a bit of research to find out. (The last link didn't work but it was just a matter of clicking on something else to follow through on that judge).

I'd be very keen to hear an insider opinion - someone familiar with the QLD justice system and with the High Court judges in particular - on how each judge might be expected to rule.

Hating the waiting, but still hopeful of justice for Allison, her family, friends and supporters.

 

[Fuskier]

I'm wondering how this works. Do the High Court judges consult with one another and sound out each other's opinions before delivering their verdict? Or do they each go off on their own and review the evidence and make their own decisions, and then when all five have arrived at a decision, get together to announce their individual verdicts? I'm curious to know.
I'd also be curious to know what sort of a track record any of them have in ruling on DV. I checked out the links Fuskier posted for each judge (on p.64 - thank you Fusky) to see if there was any background about that, but nothing came to light immediately, and I gather you'd have to be prepared to put in a bit of research to find out. (The last link didn't work but it was just a matter of clicking on something else to follow through on that judge).
I'd be very keen to hear an insider opinion - someone familiar with the QLD justice system and with the High Court judges in particular - on how each judge might be expected to rule.
Hating the waiting, but still hopeful of justice for Allison, her family, friends and supporters.

Hi Fluffykins, this may be helpful: http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinions...-of-the-court/

Judgment: The Court’s Decision
Before and after hearings, the Justices meet ‘in conference’ to discuss the issues raised by the case and impressions of the arguments contained in the written submissions or submitted in oral argument. Following the hearing, however, is when Justices begin to prepare reasons for judgment, using the materials from the hearing...
Once each judgment is finalised and proofed, the Court’s orders and catchwords for the decision are written and reviewed. Finally, each Justice’s reasons are signed and handed down in the Court...

:lookingitup:

However, in this case what is before the High Court of Australia is whether or not the QLD COA downgrade to 'manslaughter' was erroneous and whether the original jury verdict of 'murder' should be re-instated. My opinion only.

 

[Couldbe]

When the Qld COA Judges found that the Guilty Verdict should be downgraded to Manslaughter, no error by the presiding Trial Judge was found to have occurred.

If the finding of the High Court Judges results in reinstating the Murder Verdict, I wonder how the Qld COA Judges will be ‘let down lightly’ in so doing ……. may be a little delicate!

 

[LadyBird1]

I'm wondering how this works. Do the High Court judges consult with one another and sound out each other's opinions before delivering their verdict? Or do they each go off on their own and review the evidence and make their own decisions, and then when all five have arrived at a decision, get together to announce their individual verdicts? I'm curious to know.

I'd also be curious to know what sort of a track record any of them have in ruling on DV. I checked out the links Fuskier posted for each judge (on p.64 - thank you Fusky) to see if there was any background about that, but nothing came to light immediately, and I gather you'd have to be prepared to put in a bit of research to find out. (The last link didn't work but it was just a matter of clicking on something else to follow through on that judge).

I'd be very keen to hear an insider opinion - someone familiar with the QLD justice system and with the High Court judges in particular - on how each judge might be expected to rule.

Hating the waiting, but still hopeful of justice for Allison, her family, friends and supporters.

Thank-you so much Fluffykins for this post.
You have brought us all right back to an issue that brought many people (from a silent closet) to an open forum.
The Hidden side of Domestic Violence.
Allison Dickie Baden Clay, became the catalyst for many, to speak about Domestic Violence, from the very hidden side, the very real side of Domestic Violence.
I was quite shocked last few days to learn of hidden camera employed by Gerard to keep tracks on Allison when she had visitors. Baby Monitors to hear conversations from another room.
In my vocabulary, the person exercising this type of monitoring may be called a "Lethal Obsession."

I would appreciate some input here from another who has been subject to similar manner of monitoring.
Some may be other-wise name this "stalking".
Stalking:
"the act or an instance of stalking, or harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner:"

Control, may be more commonly used within the married state of affairs, where anything goes. "Anything" might include use of drugs to induce mind control.

Domestic Violence takes many faces.
Whether it commence as Mind Control in a relatively Innocuous manner or Mind Control in a fully blown Narcissistic manner, Domestic Violence an Stalking might be inextricably intertwined. Especially for one of weak character. The weak character in this instance being GBC. (His tactics appear by the book)

I would appreciate input here from another person with experience of either "Stalking" or "Mind Control Methodology."
Not sure if this the is the appropriate place to place this particular post, but for me, it is entirely relevant.
Mind Control, Stalking, Self Esteem issues
It is one small step from the Narcissistic Control form of relationship to a Physically Abusive Relationship.
It is one small step further, from a Physically Abusive relationship to a Lethally Abusive Relationship.

Back to that Innocuous subject "Domestic Violence"
..............................................
Any why few people can connect .....

 

[they'll get you]

Thank-you so much Fluffykins for this post.
You have brought us all right back to an issue that brought many people (from a silent closet) to an open forum.
The Hidden side of Domestic Violence.
Allison Dickie Baden Clay, became the catalyst for many, to speak about Domestic Violence, from the very hidden side, the very real side of Domestic Violence.
I was quite shocked last few days to learn of hidden camera employed by Gerard to keep tracks on Allison when she had visitors. Baby Monitors to hear conversations from another room.
In my vocabulary, the person exercising this type of monitoring may be called a "Lethal Obsession."

I would appreciate some input here from another who has been subject to similar manner of monitoring.
Some may be other-wise name this "stalking".
Stalking:
"the act or an instance of stalking, or harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner:"

Control, may be more commonly used within the married state of affairs, where anything goes. "Anything" might include use of drugs to induce mind control.

Domestic Violence takes many faces.
Whether it commence as Mind Control in a relatively Innocuous manner or Mind Control in a fully blown Narcissistic manner, Domestic Violence an Stalking might be inextricably intertwined. Especially for one of weak character. The weak character in this instance being GBC. (His tactics appear by the book)

I would appreciate input here from another person with experience of either "Stalking" or "Mind Control Methodology."
Not sure if this the is the appropriate place to place this particular post, but for me, it is entirely relevant.
Mind Control, Stalking, Self Esteem issues
It is one small step from the Narcissistic Control form of relationship to a Physically Abusive Relationship.
It is one small step further, from a Physically Abusive relationship to a Lethally Abusive Relationship.

Back to that Innocuous subject "Domestic Violence"
..............................................
Any why few people can connect .....

Then add almost $1,000,000 life insurance policy to this greedy self-obsessed equation and we, IMO, have the perfect recipe for murder.

This is the reason why he controlled Allison's mind body & soul so she was in no mind frame to leave.

Allison was ready to confront TMcH at the conference the next day. Gerbill would be exposed, loose the money, his mistress his business.

How could Gerbill stop it?

Separation assault.

"Why do you see the pattern that 70 percent of murders and serious assaults happen in the follow-up after breaking away from the ex?" Dr. Phil asks her.


"Well, as you said, Dr. Phil, these relationships are all about power and control," she says. "And while [you were] living there, he had the power, and he had the control, and when you left, you broke off that power, you broke off that control. And so he's trying anyway he can to show you that he still has control over you, even though you're no longer with him."


"We're dealing with a situation here that if the system cannot protect her, the ugly truth is she's got to go on the run," Dr. Phil says.


"Unfortunately, yes," Sue agrees. "She's got to figure out how to protect herself, which isn't fair. He should be locked up. He should be held accountable."

http://stage29.drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/6020/?id=6020&slide=3&showID=1530&preview=&versionID=

 

[Ochre Blue]

Thank-you so much Fluffykins for this post.
You have brought us all right back to an issue that brought many people (from a silent closet) to an open forum.
The Hidden side of Domestic Violence.
Allison Dickie Baden Clay, became the catalyst for many, to speak about Domestic Violence, from the very hidden side, the very real side of Domestic Violence.
I was quite shocked last few days to learn of hidden camera employed by Gerard to keep tracks on Allison when she had visitors. Baby Monitors to hear conversations from another room.
In my vocabulary, the person exercising this type of monitoring may be called a "Lethal Obsession."

I would appreciate some input here from another who has been subject to similar manner of monitoring.
Some may be other-wise name this "stalking".
Stalking:
"the act or an instance of stalking, or harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner:"

Control, may be more commonly used within the married state of affairs, where anything goes. "Anything" might include use of drugs to induce mind control.

Domestic Violence takes many faces.
Whether it commence as Mind Control in a relatively Innocuous manner or Mind Control in a fully blown Narcissistic manner, Domestic Violence an Stalking might be inextricably intertwined. Especially for one of weak character. The weak character in this instance being GBC. (His tactics appear by the book)

I would appreciate input here from another person with experience of either "Stalking" or "Mind Control Methodology."
Not sure if this the is the appropriate place to place this particular post, but for me, it is entirely relevant.
Mind Control, Stalking, Self Esteem issues
It is one small step from the Narcissistic Control form of relationship to a Physically Abusive Relationship.
It is one small step further, from a Physically Abusive relationship to a Lethally Abusive Relationship.

Back to that Innocuous subject "Domestic Violence"
..............................................
Any why few people can connect .....

Spot on the knocker, Ladybird!

Emotional abuse/ controlling behaviour by a partner or anybody, is hard for others to see & understand..... Often hidden behind closed doors.
Even more so with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Also difficult for the recipient to really get a handle on what's going on, as their reality is constantly being managed, confused, etc.
To add the confusion, is the perpetrator appearing initially so charming. And continuing to appear charming to the outside world.

A great website is: After Narcissistic Abuse. The author, Gary Zarfuto (? Sp) has also written a great book, aptly titled, 'From Charm to Harm; and everything else in between.'

All of this applies equally to Oscar Pistorius.

All IMHO.

 

[they'll get you]

Keep your back to the wall Gerb.

Who's your room mate?

 

[LadyBird1]

Spot on the knocker, Ladybird!

Emotional abuse/ controlling behaviour by a partner or anybody, is hard for others to see & understand..... Often hidden behind closed doors.
Even more so with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Also difficult for the recipient to really get a handle on what's going on, as their reality is constantly being managed, confused, etc.
To add the confusion, is the perpetrator appearing initially so charming. And continuing to appear charming to the outside world.

A great website is: After Narcissistic Abuse. The author, Gary Zarfuto (? Sp) has also written a great book, aptly titled, 'From Charm to Harm; and everything else in between.'

All of this applies equally to Oscar Pistorius.

All IMHO.

I wonder is Domestic Violence is the right word to be using?
The words "Domestic Violence" conjures up images of a woman with black eyes, and an obviously physically beaten-up person.
There used to be a large highway bill-board near where I live, with a picture of a very sad long haired young lady with black eyes and forlorn appearance, with the words "Domestic Violence" or something similar emblazoned thereon.
Immediately, one thinks that Domestic Violence equates to a woman being the victim of a drunken husband or similar. Physically bashed appears the primary concern.
..................................................
Maybe Domestic Abuse might be better terminology?
Domestic Abuse takes many other forms, Gas-Lighting being one.
When a person systematically and purposefully attempts to erode the self esteem and self worth of his partner, IMO, that equates to Domestic Abuse.
It may be that the perpetrator of this form of abuse, has an ulterior motive, and it is generally purely selfish. Might also be that the perpetrator gets some form of perverted gratification.
Sometimes, physical abuse is easier to bear than spiritual abuse. With the exception of that physical abuse becoming lethal.
Domestic Abuse occurs frequently with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Narcissists appear to have the ability to cover their actions and behaviour very cunningly and cleverly. These people have one face for the public, and an entirely different face for the partner.
In regards to Allison: A diary entry is particularly telling.
She questions why her husband was "so mean" after she found out, making notes about him laughing at her undies and saying she smelled.
The hurtful words are from the man in whom she placed her trust and her life.
I found these words very demeaning. Very telling of her situation. And very telling of the character of her husband.

 

[they'll get you]

Oh wow! I found this photo of the whopping bruise(?) on Alison's right leg.
I could never find it anywhere.


Please justice for Allison!!

 

[they'll get you]

We'll see Gerard, we'll see....


Gerard Baden-Clay ‘overconfident’ High Court will rule in his favour


CONVICTED wife killer Gerard Baden-Clay still believes the High Court will rule in his favour *despite a judge giving a scathing view of the case, prison sources say.


The Courier-Mail has been told Baden-Clay appeared “very overconfident” after the High Court this week heard the Crown’s appeal to reinstate his murder conviction.

During the hearing judges repeatedly questioned how he could claim at his trial he knew nothing about how his wife Allison died but benefited on appeal from a theory it was an accidental killing.





http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r/news-story/3d6ab9c132a9dae2f7fee0f1097901bd

 

[HoolyDooly]

Thanks TGY link is pay walled for Courier Mail so I might try and pick up Saturday paper today.
I guess G feels only two had quizzed his barrister so odds HAVE to be in his favour (?)
If report says he is cocky , he is either faking a brave face or irrationally certain of his fate.
Justice for Al.
Cheers Hooly

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuskier]

... all this QCOA and QHCA hearings and allegedly GBC has still not made any admission! His position from the beginning seems to have been "you prove it".

 

[LadyBird1]

Y

We'll see Gerard, we'll see....


Gerard Baden-Clay ‘overconfident’ High Court will rule in his favour


CONVICTED wife killer Gerard Baden-Clay still believes the High Court will rule in his favour *despite a judge giving a scathing view of the case, prison sources say.


The Courier-Mail has been told Baden-Clay appeared “very overconfident” after the High Court this week heard the Crown’s appeal to reinstate his murder conviction.

During the hearing judges repeatedly questioned how he could claim at his trial he knew nothing about how his wife Allison died but benefited on appeal from a theory it was an accidental killing.





http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r/news-story/3d6ab9c132a9dae2f7fee0f1097901bd

Well, one thing for sure hasn't changed, that's his cocksure attitude.
I was thinking lately about the "Business as Usual" stuff and all that was going on around him at the time.
I also 100% agree about his "Catch me if you can". attitude.
Worse, that attitude appears to weigh much more heavily than any care or concern for Allison, either in her life, when she was missing or in her death.
Also, I did wonder whose idea it was to suddenly suggest accidental killing. Surely, that would have required some input from Baden Clay?

 

[possumheart]

It has been discussed at length on previous threads, and has been removed by the moderator.
it is a shadow.

Oh wow! I found this photo of the whopping bruise(?) on Alison's right leg.
I could never find it anywhere.


Please justice for Allison!!

 

[they'll get you]

It has been discussed at length on previous threads, and has been removed by the moderator.
it is a shadow.

im sorry I didn't recall. Should I delete it?

 

[LadyBird1]

I have appreciated all posts from fellow "sleuthers"
I especially appreciated folks here commenting on the Court's recent proceedings.
Searching for key words.
Regarding the Courier Mail comment, and reading between the lines......
Baden Clay " very overconfident the Court will rule in his favour......"
Well that attitude is nothing new....
"Despite the Judge giving a SCATHING view...."
Ouch, did Baden Clay miss that bit?
Also, "Baden Clay's evidence was inconsistent with any notion at all that there was an unintended killing by him."
It might be noted that the Courier Mails source came from prison where a prison source said that Baden Clay had been "hanging out with nobodies" and like other inmates "just keeps to a few crims."
Anybody else here feeling cautiously optimistic?

 

[Couldbe]

I have appreciated all posts from fellow "sleuthers"
I especially appreciated folks here commenting on the Court's recent proceedings.
Searching for key words.
Regarding the Courier Mail comment, and reading between the lines......
Baden Clay " very overconfident the Court will rule in his favour......"
Well that attitude is nothing new....
"Despite the Judge giving a SCATHING view...."
Ouch, did Baden Clay miss that bit?
Also, "Baden Clay's evidence was inconsistent with any notion at all that there was an unintended killing by him."
It might be noted that the Courier Mails source came from prison where a prison source said that Baden Clay had been "hanging out with nobodies" and like other inmates "just keeps to a few crims."
Anybody else here feeling cautiously optimistic?

This is an extract from the Courier Mail reporting on the Trial - “Justice John Byrne, presiding over Baden-Clay's trial, heard a defence application in the absence of the jury to dismiss the murder charge because there was no evidence to elevate the case beyond unlawful killing”.
The Application was refused by Justice Byrne.

(Had the application been successful, Baden Clay would have only had to answer to the lesser charge of manslaughter ….. not that anything had been admitted at that stage).

JMO:
This is where I see there could possibly be a Legal wrangle ……..Having been denied the opportunity to answer to that charge, and then the three Qld COA Judges reducing the conviction to Manslaughter.
…… so what does this say about Justice Byrne’s refusal of the Application by the Defence?


When Baden Clay said while on trial for Murder “I did not kill my Wife” that was his denial of the Murder Charge/theory brought by the Prosecution .,,, not in answer to the Manslaughter Charge which had been refused in the Application to Justice Byrne.
(Splitting hairs).

… He knows that there were no witnesses to what happened to Allison, and therefore he and the Defence can say that he did not kill Allison, while insinuating only that her death may have been caused by a tragic accident of some kind.

 

[LadyBird1]

This is an extract from the Courier Mail reporting on the Trial - “Justice John Byrne, presiding over Baden-Clay's trial, heard a defence application in the absence of the jury to dismiss the murder charge because there was no evidence to elevate the case beyond unlawful killing”.
The Application was refused by Justice Byrne.

(Had the application been successful, Baden Clay would have only had to answer to the lesser charge of manslaughter ….. not that anything had been admitted at that stage).

JMO:
This is where I see there could possibly be a Legal wrangle ……..Having been denied the opportunity to answer to that charge, and then the three Qld COA Judges reducing the conviction to Manslaughter.
…… so what does this say about Justice Byrne’s refusal of the Application by the Defence?


When Baden Clay said while on trial for Murder “I did not kill my Wife” that was his denial of the Murder Charge/theory brought by the Prosecution .,,, not in answer to the Manslaughter Charge which had been refused in the Application to Justice Byrne.
(Splitting hairs).

… He knows that there were no witnesses to what happened to Allison, and therefore he and the Defence can say that he did not kill Allison, while insinuating only that her death may have been caused by a tragic accident of some kind.

How GBC may truthfully say "I did not kill my wife"
Well... sort of truthfully....
This is conjecture on my part, but playing with words is not conjecture.
Allison was rendered unconscious by an act of GBC.
He either did, or did not check that she was deceased, after that act.
Nevertheless, he placed her at Kholo Creek. That place (my conjecture) was pre-planned.
Before I explain the "Innocent of Murder" theory, I would like to suggest that this does not explain the use of Ice or another drug that might cause a perpetrator to suffer a memory lapse.
The reason I am supplying this "Innocent of Murder" talk is this:
Many years ago, I was a passenger on a bus in Brisbane. A man walked out straight into the path of the bus. He was knocked out cold, unconsciousness. Ambulance was called and he was transported to the RBH. I escorted the fellow to the hospital.
Next day, the local newspaper reported the event:
"Man killed by bus....."
That was wrong in my 18 year mind. He was hit by a bus, rendered unconscious, and maybe died as a result ... I genuinely didn't know for sure as I didn't stick around the hospital all night.
This mentality on my part is called splitting hairs, and obviously suggests immaturity. However, for many years, I genuinely believed that the newspaper report "Man killed by bus" was wrong.
Should have reported thus" Man died as a result of walking into a bus"

In the same manner, it is possible that Baden Clay can say that he did not kill his wife.
Why? Because he did not check for signs of life, ie breathing and circulation, when he placed her at Kholo Creek.
And thus he could not for absolute certainty proclaim that Allison was deceased.
This conjecture on my part does NOT take into account the LIES, CUNNING and DECEIT factors, in which Baden Clay apparently excelled.
For anybody wondering, I have also spent a life time of dealing with LIARS. Questions have to be adjusted accordingly.

 

[LadyBird1]

I thought this was interesting and particularly relevant:

https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/.../dangerous-mind-games-how-psycho...

We’ve all been burned by psychopaths largely because we fell for their lies and their lines. The better informed people are with their techniques of deception, the more they can recognize them and protect themselves against them. A psychopath gets you within his power largely through deception. As Cleckley noted in The Mask of Sanity, the main reason why people are easily taken in by their lies is not because the lies themselves are that convincing, but because of the psychopaths’ effective rhetorical strategies. What are those?

1. Glibness and Charm. We’ve already seen that these are two of the main personality traits of psychopaths. They know how to use them to their advantage. Psychopaths lie very easily and in a smooth manner. They often pass lie detector tests as well because such tests register emotion, not deception. Psychopaths tend to remain cool under pressure. They can tell you the most implausible stories–such as when they get a call from their girlfriend but tell you that it’s a random call from a jailbird–but do it so matter-of-factly that it makes you want to believe them. Sometimes they distract you from the content of their words with their charm. They look at you lovingly, stroke your hair or your arm and punctuate their speech with kisses, caresses and tender words, so that you’re mesmerized by them instead of focusing on what they’re actually saying.

2. Analogies and Metaphors. Because their facts are so often fabrications, psychopaths often rely upon analogies and metaphors to support their false or manipulative statements. For instance, if they wish to persuade you to cheat on your husband or significant other, they may present their case in the form of an analogy. They may ask you to think of the cheating (or breaking up with your current partner) as a parent who is sparing his drafted child greater harm by breaking his leg to save him from going to war. This analogy doesn’t work at all, of course, if you stop and think about it. Your significant other isn’t drafted to be dumped for a psychopath. You’re not sparing him any pain by breaking his leg or, in this case, his heart. You’re only giving credit to the psychopath’s sophistry and misuse of analogy to play right into his hands, thus hurting both yourself and your spouse.

3. Slander. A psychopath often slanders others, to discredit them and invalidate their truth claims. He projects his faults and misdeeds upon those he hurts. To establish credibility, he often maligns his wife or girlfriend, attributing the failure of his relationship to her faults or misdeeds rather than his own.

4. Circumlocution. When you ask a psychopath a straightforward question that requires a straightforward answer, he usually goes round and round in circles or talks about something else altogether. For instance, when you ask him where he was on the previous night, sometimes he lies. At other times, he tries to divert you by bringing up another subject. He may also use flattery, such as saying how sexy your voice sounds and how much you turn him on. Such distractions are intended to cloud your reasoning and lead you to forget your original question.

5. Evasion. Relatedly, psychopaths can be very evasive. When you ask a psychopath a specific question, he will sometimes answer in general terms, talking about humanity, or men, or women, or whatever: anything but his own self and actions, which is what you were inquiring about in the first place.

6. Pointing Fingers at Others. When you accuse a psychopath of wrongdoing, he’s likely to tell you that another person is just as bad as him or that humanity in general is. The first point may or may not be true. At any rate, it’s irrelevant. So what if person x, y or z–say, one of the psychopath’s friends or girlfriends–has done similarly harmful things or manifests some of his bad qualities? The most relevant point to you, if you’re the psychopath’s partner, should be how he behaves and what his actions say about him. The second point is patently false. All human beings have flaws, of course. But we don’t all suffer from an incurable personality disorder. If you have any doubts about that, then you should research the matter. Google his symptoms, look up psychopathy and see if all or even most of the people you know exhibit them. Of course, even normal individuals can sometimes be manipulative, can sometimes lie and can sometimes cheat. But that doesn’t make our actions comparable to the magnitude of remorseless deceit, manipulation and destruction that psychopaths are capable of. Furthermore, most of us, whatever our flaws, care about others.

7. Fabrication of Details. In The Postmodern Condition, Jean-François Lyotard shows how offering a lot of details makes a lie sound much more plausible. When you give a vague answer, your interlocutor is more likely to sense evasion and pursue her inquiries. But when you present fabricated details–such as when you are with your girlfriend in a hotel room but tell your wife that you were with your male buddy named X, at a Chinese restaurant named Y and ate General Gao chicken and rice which cost a mere $ 5 at a restaurant and discussed your buddy’s troubles with his girlfriend, who has left him because he cheated too much on her–your wife’s more likely to believe your elaborate fiction. Because they excel at improvisation, psychopaths are excellent fabricators of details. Even novelists have reason to envy their ability to make up false but believable “facts” on the spot.

8. Playing upon your Emotions. Very often, when confronted with alternative accounts of what happened, psychopaths play upon your emotions. For example, if his girlfriend compares notes with the wife, a psychopath is likely to ask his wife: “Who are you going to believe? Me or her?” This reestablishes complicity with the wife against the girlfriend, testing the wife’s love and loyalty to him. It also functions as a subterfuge. That way he doesn’t have to address the information offered by the other source. To anybody whose judgment remains unclouded by the manipulations of a psychopath, the answer should be quite obvious. Just about any person, even your garden-variety cheater and liar, is far more credible than a psychopath. But to a woman whose life and emotions are wrapped around the psychopath, the answer is likely to be that she prefers to believe him over his girlfriend or anybody else for that matter. Even in such a hopeless situation–if a psychopath’s partner doesn’t want to face the truth about him–it’s still important to share information with her. Psychopaths form co-dependent, addictive bonds with their so-called “loved” ones. They’re as dangerous to their partners as any hard drug is likely to be. If their partners know about their harmful actions and about their personality disorder, then at least they’re willingly assuming the risk. Everyone has the right to make choices in life, including the very risky one of staying with a psychopath. But at least they should make informed choices, so that they know whom they’re choosing and are prepared for the negative consequences of their decision.

Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control. For this reason, it’s pointless to try to sort out the truth from the lies. As M. L. Gallagher, a contributor to the website lovefraud.com has eloquently remarked, psychopaths themselves are the lie. From hello to goodbye, from you’re beautiful to you’re ugly, from you’re the woman of my life to you mean nothing to me, from beginning to end, the whole relationship with a psychopath is one big lie.

Claudia Moscovici, psychopathyawareness