Alachua County EMWIN Project

Alachua County EMWIN Project
Free local area severe weather bulletins!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Psychopaths and Stalking
Update: 03/10/2010 - On Prof. Richard Hollinger


NOTES, March 9, 2010:

Contacted local University of Florida criminologist Prof. Richard Hollinger by phone back on February 4th after a few previous emails and interviewed him regarding a past criminal case involving 5 University of Florida students who had hacked into the UF's IFAS computer server system back in 1985.

Said he's interviewed the people who were involved in the hacking before for his research. He described his "interview" with Susan Tipton, which in the end seemed to be more of a chance meeting and almost a flirting session.

He laughed and chuckled and elaborated about how impressed he was with her, how he thought she was so nice, how she related to him that the whole thing was just this minor joke, how the incident was supposedly inconsequential and blown way out of proportion, how she related the entire hacking incident to even be an "embarrassment" for the University, and that the University of Florida "just wanted to make it go away", and this guy ate it up.

Here is a transcript of the actual conversation from my notes made during the call: Hollinger Transcript.

If such an embarrassment, why did UF go so far and to actually prosecute? Why didn't they just drop charges altogether if it was so "unimportant" and "embarrassing"? Where's the objective thinking, here?

Professor made the classic mistake of getting caught up in psychopathic drivel, something noted in many psychology books - and he missed it. There are stories, for example, of psychopaths describing the gruesome murders they've committed as being "necessary" to their ends, and for a second, the psychologists admit...they often actually catch themselves smiling with them and nodding their heads in agreement, laughing along with them even, until they realize..."Oh my god! What the hell am I DOING?!" Why does this happen? Because they're so good at talking. Often very charismatic, they have been known to charm even the most well-trained experts.

This "enamoration" with Susan shocked and frightened me, took me aback, and I did not think it was appropriate for someone who was supposed to be interested in accurately researching the psychology of crimes to be so apparently easily and gullibly manipulated. How did the Professor not see this? I worried that the Professor wasn't going to be very helpful because he was too busy seeing stars. The Professor sounded to me to be far more overly emotionally attached to Susan than he should be. Seemed way too overly "compromised" by her charisma and manner of speaking and did not seem able to speak objectively or in any "detached" way about the situation. Worse, he didn't seem able to recognize it in himself. I've seen this in Susan repeatedly before, from personal experience over nearly twenty years, now - how she is able to manipulate people by smiling and giggling a lot, disarming them. Throw in her obviously apparent intelligence, and something else very important: her ability to belittle you and correct you all the time and to make you feel like she could always challenge your intelligence so that you end up looking or feeling stupid in front of others, and she seems pretty intimidating. This tends to force most people into a passive mode - one of keeping your mouth shut and not speaking up to challenge her. People get easilly hooked up in that; and so, they never bother to question her. They just bob their heads up and down, instead, with an insipid smile on their faces. Susan knows very well how to manipulate people. The Professor did not seem to recognize that he was being manipulated by the criminal.

To digress a second: Was he expecting the criminal to sob and admit guilt and fall to the floor and apologize or something while experiencing a moment of sudden compassionate concern for the victim like they always do in the movies? NO! They're going to deny; to even make it sound as if they were being picked on by society and by the police! He should know this! Is this how his entire $400 book is put together - with non-objective interviews with criminals he "felt" were innocent, allowing himself to be manipulated by them? I keep going back over the phone conversation and this is exactly what I seem to be seeing. I'm going to find a copy of his book and pour through it now from front to back. I want to see just how "objective" this guy really is. I have to now admit that I have very low confidence going in. I don't think I will ever be able to trust what I read now in any of his books because of that conversation that we had about Susan.

This is a criminologist with a PhD and who is supposed to be a professional and objective and detached. I was not impressed with his sympathetic praisings of the criminal; nor did I feel confident in him or in his abilities to objectively think or reason after that. I had a sinking, doubtful feeling, instead - like this guy was going to be yet another one who screws me somehow, or dumps me in the end. It's the same feeling that I had dealing with Detective Joseph Mayo at the Gainesville Police Department, and with Detective Michael Metz at UPD, and with just about everyone else that I've tried to go to for help. ...Where something inside you says, "Here we go again...this doesn't feel right, and it's gonna *happen* again."

Remaining detached is unforgiveably important in research of narcissists, psychopaths, and other people with otherwise "anti-social personality disorders"; and in my phone conversation with him, the Professor did not at all seem to have his objectivity mastered, or to even understand that it was something he should even be aware of. Instead, he was proud of Susan; bragged of her! In fact, I felt like I was listening to a cult religion member bragging of his leader or something. The Professor would seem to have made a huge mistake in his interview with Susan Tipton. Books by Hare, et al, warn of this problem in academic and police circles - the apparent lack of education about the ease with which these people can con and manipulate even the best-trained people who are supposed to know what to look for. People just don't understand what they're dealing with. He made the classic mistake. If you don't watch what you're doing, then you will end up finding yourself emotionally taking sides, and going farther then you needed to or were authorized to, and even taking actions against the victim such as deliberately sabotaging evidence, and perhaps inadvertently aiding and abetting the bad guys - maybe even doing so on purpose, and in so doing, causing harm to the innocent people in the end. (This sounds familiar.)

I'm slowly learning that even a degree doesn't necessarily mean jack, or that the person holding it necessarily knows what he or she is doing. Neither does a uniform or a title. They mean nothing.

So back to the Professor... How am I supposed to trust that this guy is going to take an objective, unbiased stance of real, true whole-hearted research into the situation with Jeff Capehart if he's already so very "taken in" by Jeff's wife? I'm screwed. God dammit! Jesus christ, man!

Last I spoke with the Professor (by email on Feb. 5th - see log of post-interview emails), he advised me that he had made "inquiries" with some of his "contacts" about Jeff Capehart. I never heard from him again after that. He will not return emails or calls. Has not related anything that he had supposedly discovered or uncovered. I fear the Professor spoke too much, to the wrong people without being careful, and that he may have in fact ended up sabotaging my efforts by giving people who were friends of Jeff some heads up word which was then brought back to Jeff.

I trusted that he knew what he was doing, that he was objective, that he would not get emotionally involved and would not pick sides and just investigate. Then again, I trusted a cop to do the same, too, once.

I fear that he came across people who knew Jeff, who were his friends, who vouched for him, and rather then continue his research he simply decided to dump me...or perhaps he was told to by UF upper echolon looking to stay out of something which to them looked like a huge "barrel of monkeys" worth of trouble to be avoided and kept quiet. (sigh) I dunno. I feel like the man just wanted more information out of me - using it in a manner exactly like Paul Eakin did - perhaps to use as followup for his $400 book, just like Eakin wanted to use my pain and suffering in his political campaign to help his popularity. Who knows. He obviously was not actually and honestly interested in helping me. But it would seem that I am no longer worthy of his contact and that he is not interested in following through with what he started or in keeping me updated. So for this reason, I believe that he was compromised. Something is definitely wrong. Something has definitely changed. It is obvious that he bumped into someone who convinced him to stop pursuing the matter immediately, and...he did...including abandoning taking the time to politely advise me that he was no longer interested in pursuing his investigations for (this/that) reason.

So much for "commitment" to the research. I guess that only matters as much as keeping your tenure...not for getting to the truth of anything.

I fear one of a few things could have happened:

  1. Somebody convinced him that I was the bad guy and that Jeff was the good guy, and that I was just picking on a poor, sweet, innocent man who could never do anyone an ounce of harm...and he's abandoned me. Or...

  2. In his research he began to realize that this is bigger and involves far too many prominent people and that maybe it would be best for his career if he just slowly slinked out of the picture and went back to his quiet, private little hole at the UF and appreciate his job, and pretend he never started looking into anything in the first place...and he's abandoned me. Or...

  3. He ran into someone who actually TOLD him that he was prying into things he would do better to keep his nose out of and that it could mean his name, his credibility and his career...and he's abandoned me.

Whichever the case...I seem to yet again be...abandoned.

I'm getting real sick of people pretending to be interested in helping me only to end up aiding and abetting the bad guys somehow, here...from clubs to local government to bad cops. I fear that the Professor may have inadvertently interfered with my case, now. Who did he talk to? How much did he reveal to his "contacts?" Which contacts knew Jeff, and brought that information to Jeff, now? This guy pretended to be interested in helping me, gathered sensitive information from me, apparently shared it, will not reveal who he shared the information with (so I will never know the path that the information took inside UF circles); and then he abandoned me.

Ugh. (sigh) This guy does not impress me. He seems to me more like a low life than someone with a degree who is into it for the education and learning. It just smells of personal agenda, to me. There are good professors, and then there are those who have their own agendas. I have NO idea what this guy's actual agenda is. But...

There is now no place that I can apparently go to for help. :( I don't know where else to go, now. I've gone everywhere. Local clubs don't want to touch it. Local government agencies not only won't help but seem content to actually aid and abet the bad guys and seem bent on running actual interference for them, as do the local police departments. One cop deliberately sabotaged a harassment case I'd filed, and another police department actually helped Jeff Capehart get away with hacking my server. I have no protection. None. Jeff has the power to do whatever he wants. I am unable to do anything about Jeff or the other people he encourages to attack me, and they have the power to do whatever they want at any time, and no one will challenge them.

...Why? ...Because people like the Professor keep pretending to be concerned, only to jump ship at some point - but not without screwing something up pretty badly on the way out.

Here's a question: Let's say Jeff goes too far one day, and again encourages one of those low-life, no-brain types to harass me, and that person decides to use a gun this time; or a knife? And let's say that I survive, and I'm able to talk to the cameras and the mics that are in my face at my hospital bed, asking me what happened. What uh...what's GPD, UPD, ACOEM, the UF...the Professor...what are they all going to say to the cameras when they come for them when Todd said that he went to all of them for help, when he says that he's been complaining to them for many years about people who stalk and harass him and how everywhere he went no one took him seriously and in fact even went as far as to criticize and sabotage him? What will they do when they find out that the Professor...well...he asked for details and pretended to be interested in helping, and then abandoned the guy who got shot? This is the price of taking sides. It's all a big guessing game. If you're not willing to do actual forensics investigating, then you have to guess who is telling the truth, and who is not. You shouldn't be guessing in the first place. But if you're going to get involved, you better be fair and unbiased. If you guess wrong, take the wrong side, and you helped the bad people...then you helped cause harm to the innocent person. And now you're responsible. Yes, what would they do if it ever went that to that point? Nobody ever thinks about these kinds of things. Everybody wants to get involved. Everybody wants to play the at-home, arm chair, CSI detective. But nobody ever uses real forensics. Everybody always goes on "gut feeling" and guess work. "I don't NEED to know all the details! I've seen CSI! I know how it goes!" Then the trouble happens, and suddenly everybody realizes they had NO clue what they were doing, and that they were wrong. Now everybody is scattering in 360 different directions, trying to cover their asses because they screwed up, guessed wrong, and they know it...and now they have to burn and shred papers, erase emails, maybe even convince other parties involved to put their careers on the line and lie for them. Will people put their careers on the line for the other guy? How far will it go? ...And before they realize they're the psychopath, having caused the damage themselves, and they're erasing evidence, and calculating how to avoid getting caught for what they did.

I...keep...SEEING this happen...over...and over in all of this. It is unbelievable. ...The ARRL, the NWS, ACOEM, GPD, UPD, the University of Florida... Good god. Everywhere is somebody thinking they "know" who the bad guy is, and the innocent guy getting it, and then someone realizing they were wrong, and hiding. Me? ...My life just gets wrecked by one person after another, one agency after another, and then people run when they find out they just picked on an innocent person. It's like a surreal Southpark movie. What's up with that in human psychology? Why do people run when they realize they caused damage? Didn't our parents, and our Gods, and our holy books teach us to come forward and admit what we did and to apologize? Ah...but add in more serious factors now...lawsuits, loss of careers, loss of homes, loss of assets and benefits, embarassment of huge public agencies...and a whole new world emerges.

Suddenly our parents, and God, and religion...these things mean nothing. It's okay. Jesus will forgive us for lieing about that guy, for not coming forward with what we know...even if the guy ended up dead as a result of our not doing anything.

Religion...means nothing. God...IS the world of crime.

I know too much about life for my own good. And it is depressing.

You'd think that this is only supposed to happen on TV and in the movies...not to real people in real life.

Let's see a criminologist write about that.

...But you won't. (They have to get past the prejudiced belief that I'm the bad guy, first. ...And that's not gonna happen. I guess I don't deserve things like fair chances, and justice, and benefit of the doubt, or even so much as a fair courtroom hearing or trial. Ah but then...that's actually it, though. Isn't it? Nobody wants their mistakes aired in a courtroom because then it would become part of the permanent, referenceable record that the whole world could then see. There could then be inquiries, investigations...maybe even Press involvement!...EEEAGH! People would lose their jobs; people and agencies would get sued. We don't want that now.

I suppose it also has a lot to do with why this blog has also remained up for so long, too. For someone to try to make me take it down, it would involve a courtroom, because I'd object and sue for my right to defend myself against the gossip and rumors being spread about me. (There's an issue for yuh. Can the bad guys say whatever they want about you and not have to answer for it, while you get stifled? Don't challenge me because I'll put that question to the actual real life test.) And that might mean the chance of all this getting out into an even wider circle. And so, they just deal with the pain of seeing their names occasionally hit upon in search engines, I guess. It's far easier to just say "Oh, he's just a disgruntled nutcase!" in response to any queries that might come about, than to bring it into a courtroom, and in front of TV cameras, and risk losing everything you own. Yup-puh. 'Dat it 'tis.)

[ Back To Index ]     [ UPDATE: September 16, 2010 - On The NWS's Reaction ]

No comments:

Post a Comment