Kenn's Laws | AbateHate.com | REAL Black History | History & Archaeology | History of Racial Violence | Language Loading | About

Top 25 Conservative Websites | Top 75 Facebook Pages | Kenn Sings | Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong |

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

Saturday Night at the Movies
Girl in the News (1940)
Movies from when America was great!

March 29, 2016


Millions loved Aunt Bee.

Few cared for Frances Bavier.

Aunt Bee was the paternal aunt of Andy Taylor, sheriff of Mayberry, North Carolina.

Frances Bavier was the actress who portrayed Aunt Bee.

Andy Griffith, who portrayed Andy Taylor, once mused that Bavier didn't like him. He had no idea why.

A few months before she died, Bavier phoned Griffith and apologized for being so obstinate.

Apparently Aunt Bee and Francis were opposites.  The fictitious character was warm, loving, and considerate.  The real actress, they say, was cold, obnoxious, and acidic. 

Francis could switch on the Aunt Bee character at the director's cue, then abruptly turn it off.

Be sure you read this post to the very end. 
At the conclusion you will find the most important information: 
Ten Commandments for Psychopath Victims.
The most import of those is commandment number 10.

While millions loved Aunt Bee, the cast and crew of The Andy Griffith Show knew the real Francis.

Francis was the real person. Aunt Bee was her act.

Part 1: Meet my "Aunt Bee"

Ted (not his real name) was a long-time friend.

Ted explained why he had no bank accounts or credit cards. As a devout Christian he was avoiding the world system which, in his view, was on the verge of being taken over by the anti-Christ. 

Ted did not tell me he had been prosecuted multiple times for check deception; that he had served jail time for his crimes. He did not inform me that his right to have a checking account was revoked by the court. No bank would allow him to have a checking account. Credit cards were simply out of his reach. 

Ted explained why he had no driver's license. Again, he was avoiding the godless system of the anti-Christ.

He did not tell me that his driver's license had been suspended for failure to appear in court. In fact, court documents reveal about fifty court actions involving Ted over a 15-year period. Samples of court documents are provided below. 

There were many cues that I missed; nineteen of those cues are outlined in this presentation and are highlighted in red.

At the beginning, about 1985, Ted demonstrated absolute loyalty to my work as a pastor. I thought it odd, however, when congregants informed me that Ted had contacted the former pastor and encouraged him to return to our city and plant a new church. Such a scenario would have been devastating. A split in the congregation would have been inevitable. The former pastor had left the church deep in debt. Those of us who came later were left holding the bag. Losing dozens of families to a new church would have ended the existing ministry. 

I missed the first cue: My friend's Francis personality was actively working against me behind my back while his Aunt Bee character continued to play the role of a true friend. 

Ted projected his Aunt Bee persona as a faithful Christian with an intense dedication to Christ. He was far superior to typical Christians who allowed themselves to be immersed in Satan's deceptive one-world order. 

His genuine Francis personality was that of a conniving criminal. 

Ted was an incredible actor. I believed his act. I accepted his Aunt Bee persona to be genuine and was fully unaware of the real Francis personality that he skillfully hid. 

• The psychopathic personality 

Screen capture: https://youtu.be/HyamTouoB9o?t=226

The contrast between Francis Bavier and Aunt Bee may be a classic example of the underlying dynamics of the psychopathic personality.

Many therapists believe psychopathy is pathalogical: It cannot be cured or affectively changed or altered. Some psychologists contend that therapy actually makes psychopathy worse, as psychopaths learn to manipulate therapists. (It fits perfectly into the Calvinist paradigm that asserts some are predestined for salvation while other, by default, are not. Psychopaths cannot be "saved." There is no genuine spiritual conversion, only a glib pretense. Arminianism, on the other hand, contends man's free will and God's sovereignty are compatible. Psychopathy defies Arminian theology and is, therefore, a micro-epiphany that challenges the credibility of Christian soteriology. The lunacy of Calvinism only augments the micro-epiphany. It is absurd to believe that one is predestined for damnation due to atypical amygdalae.)

Pyschopaths, such as my dear Christian friend Ted and Robert Elmer Kleason (see below) are noted for attaching themselves to religious communities, pretending to be genuine converts when, in reality, they are wolves in sheeps clothing "seeking whom they may devour."

Psychopaths tend to possess two conflicting personalities. The first is the Aunt Bee persona. It is the personality with which most are familiar. The second is the Francis Bavier personality. It is the personality that few encounter. 

The Aunt Bee personality is an act. The Francis personality is real. 

Those who have been victimized by psychopaths understand how deceptively convincing the Aunt Bee act really is.

Psychopaths are so destructive that their victims often join support groups to deal with the severity of the trauma. Most victims are never the same. Typically, they lose their trust in humanity. Many find themselves fearful of forming new friendships, engaging in business relationships, or finding a new mate.

Again, psychopaths have two personalities. One is cold, calculating, glib and superficial. They pretend to be warm, kind, and considerate. One is real. The other is an act.

Those who don't know the Francis side of psychopaths may easily be fooled by their Aunt Bee personas. They often are fooled. That's by design.

Psychopaths are not crazy. They are not delusional. They are in full contact with reality. The exception is their delusional self-perception. Psychopaths tend to overestimate their intelligence, social skills, artistic abilities, etc. 

Dr. Robert Hare published a checklist of psychopathic traits based on his research. It contains 20 characteristics of psychopaths. Professional psychiatrists use the test to evaluate persons suspected of being psychopaths.

• The biggest mistake of my life

More then two decades had passed since I first met Ted. 

He was homeless and needed a place to stay. I offered my business office in downtown Columbus, Indiana. He could stay there until he found a permanent residence.

That was the single worst mistake I've ever made. I was wholly unaware that I was effectively inviting a legion of demons into my life.

Life-long friends now hate and shun me. It's the outcome of "gaslighting," a strategy commonly used by psychopaths to demonize their victims and vindicate themselves. A simpler term is slander. It's also called calumny, defined as "a misrepresentation intended to harm another's reputation" and "the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm another's reputation." Yet another term is scurrilous; "making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation."

Call it what you will — gaslighting, slander, calumny, or scurrilous — the outcome was the same. The 'dear Christian friend' I tried to help by giving him a place stay, feeding him, helping him earn an income, transporting him (he had no driver's license), and even buying him a cell phone and paying for the service tried to destroy my reputation in an apparent effort to cover his malfeasance.

We'll delve into gaslighting later. 

His "brief" stay in my office lasted three years.  

For three years Ted slept on the office floor and "bathed" at the restroom sink. His clothes were hung on a makeshift bar strung across the back of the office. His belongings were stuffed in every nook and cranny. 

I bought my good Christian friend, Ted, a cell phone and paid for his phone usage. He used that very phone to slander me. I was literally paying to be slandered. On two occasions he ran the monthly usage charge to over $400 and never offered to reimburse me for the added costs. 

I drove my friend to make sales calls. Our deal was: We'd share half the commission after I paid for travel expenses and food. My dear Christian friend had the audacity to present some of our accounts as his own, keeping the commission. 

I fed my dear friend. I drove him on errands. Some were necessities, such as driving him to a laundry. Most were nugatory, such as countless trips to look at real estate; all of which were silly pipe dreams.

I felt good about helping my friend. It is that heightened sense of loyalty that makes us vulnerable to psychopaths. Unfortunately, that loyalty is dangerously exaggerated and, while flush with sympathy, smacks of gullibility.

I trusted Ted empirically. My gullibility and inability to see his Francis personality is, no doubt, what led him to victimize me. He could "see inside" me. I could not see inside him; I could not see beyond his character actor. I literally accepted him at face value.  

My dear Christian friend, Ted, was "a friend that sticketh closer than a brother" [Proverbs 18:24]. There was a reason. It turns out he was a leech. Once he could suck no more blood out of me, he departed and embarked on a gaslighting campaign of calumny.

I suspect that — after examination by a trained professional — Ted would prove to be the quintessential example of a psychopath as described by Dr. Hare; Ted is a literal textbook psychopath.

• Understanding empathy is key to understanding psychopathy

To understand psychopaths one must first understand empathy. 

Empathy is the ability to sense and understand the feelings of others. It is not synonymous with compassion. One can sense and understand the feelings of others without experiencing the slightest tinge of compassion for them.

Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen is a world leading neuroscientist and Cambridge professor. To explain how a psychopath can treat others as mere objects, he notes that empathy has two components; cognitive and affective.  

Cognitive empathy is the ability to perceive other people's thoughts and feelings. It is the recognition element. Affective empathy is the drive to respond with appropriate emotion to other people's thoughts and feelings. It is the lack of affective empathy, he explains, that leads to acts of cruelty.  [source].

Click the image above to hear Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen explain cognitive vs affective empathy. (Begins at about 7:00)

Psychopaths tend to possess cognitive (shallow) empathy while lacking affective (deep) empathy. They seem gifted at perceiving underlying gullibility. They are superficial in that their insights lack compassion. Psychopathy lacks the ability to genuinely feel the hurt the psychopath causes.

• Loyalty: Why I was fooled and foolish

I was caught off guard when a psychologist asked why I was so kind to my "friend" Ted.

After a moment of thought it occurred to me that I possessed a deep seated sense of loyalty.

Those us of blessed with high-functioning Autism (Asperger's syndrome) are often noted for extreme loyalty. Aspie's tend to be loyal to spouses, employers, friends, co-workers, etc.

Our loyalty blinds us to the deceptions of psychopaths posing as friends. It's akin to a cat playing with a mouse wherein the mouse believes the cat is being friendly. When the cat is finished playing with the mouse, he kills it, discards it, and seeks another mouse.

Like gold and diamonds, we tend to value that which is scarce. Friends are scarce to Aspies. And so we value them. We often fail to recognize that the "friend" to whom we are loyally devoted is actually fool's gold. 

My father was raised as an orphan in foster homes during The Depression. Consequently, he placed a high value on acquiring "a steady job." I was raised with few friends and placed a high value on the one I thought I had. 


• Empathy: Why I was fooled and foolish

Those of us who are autistic also lack empathy. So how do we differ from psychopaths? 


People with autism tend to lack cognitive empathy but may possess affective empathy. Psychopaths are the opposite. They may possess cognitive (shallow) empathy but lack affective (deep) empathy. 


Relating to empathy:

Auspies are not shallow, but are deep. 

Psychopaths are shallow, but are not deep. 


Consequently, autistic people are easily duped because they fail to understand superficial emotions due to the absence of cognitive or shallow empathy. 

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are attuned to the surface confusion of autistic people. They correctly interpret this lack of cognitive empathy as gullibility that makes the autistic person easy prey. The psychopath may then dupe the autistic person. 

The psychopath has no remorse due a lack of affective or deep empathy. 

I failed to recognize Ted's duplicitous intentions because I lacked cognitive, shallow empathy. I blindly continued to try to help my "friend" due to my abundance of affective, deep empathy. 

Ted succeeded in scamming me because he sensed my gullibility; my lack of cognitive, shallow empathy. He callously continued to scam me due to his dearth of affective, deep empathy. 

My lack of cognitive empathy and abundance of affective empathy paired with Ted's attuned cognitive empathy and lack of affective empathy. We are empathy opposites. That created an ideal host and parasite relationship. 

Read more about cognitive and affective empathy at Psychology Today. 

So, when we say that psychopaths lack empathy, we are not suggesting they lack insight. Rather, we are saying they lack compassionate insight. They are void of deep empathy. When psychopaths display compassion it is a part of their Aunt Bee character; a deception. 

• A life of deception

Ted prides himself on his ability to deceive people. He's very good at it. Were you to meet Ted, you would almost certainly be deceived. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. 

His deceptive ability to explain "big misunderstandings" is, in my mind, legendary. Deception appears to be his joy, delight, and — not surprisingly — occupation.


It's more than an occupation. It is his lifestyle.  

As noted earlier I had known Ted for over 20 years. He presented himself as a trusted friend and ally. His Francis personality was well hidden from the eyes of the gullible and I, obviously, was more than gullible: I was vulnerable. 

I was wholly unaware that my trusted friend was leading a life of crime part of which is documented in records at the courthouse in Bartholomew County, Indiana. Nor did I know he was a serial defendant in a flurry of lawsuits that transcended many years. You will see a few of the documents below in the section titled Part 7: Duping others. 

I didn't see Francis. I only saw Aunt Bee. 

• Duped for decades

It's an understatement to say, "I was vulnerable."

In fact, I was duped for decades. Why was I unable to see Ted's Francis personality for so long?

Deception is key to the success of psychopaths. Consider these examples:

• Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff deceived his closest friends for decades. He duped thousands of investors, not to mention employees, business associates and even the federal government's Securities and Exchange Commission. What's more telling is that Madoff successfully duped the most intimate person in his life: his wife; the mother of his children. You'll read her statement later in this article. 

• Consider "Iceman" Richard Kuklinski. He was a professional hit man with a death score approaching 250. Like Mrs. Madoff, Kuklinski's wife and mother of his children was duped for decades. 

• Consider Ted Bundy, perhaps the world's most famous psychopath. Until he was caught, the only individuals who saw his Francis personality were his unfortunate victims. 
Would he have fooled you?
Friendly John Gacy
fooled most everyone
he met, until it was
too late.

• Then there was the beloved neighborhood clown and community activist John Wayne Gacy. Not until a trove of 33 corpses were toted out of his crawl space did friends and neighbors believe he was anything but a dear friend; an Aunt Bee. Granted, Ted never committed physical murder (as far as I know), but the number of "corpses" buried in his "crawl space" at the Bartholomew County, Indiana courthouse reveal the beloved Ted was anything but a harmless neighborhood clown. 

The similarities in behavior between psychopaths are truly amazing and fascinating. 

• To grasp a fuller understanding of Ted's effectiveness of deception, let's briefly compare his psychopathic traits with those of yet another notorious psychopath, Robert Elmer Kleason. 

Would he have fooled you?
Friendly Bob Kleason
fooled most everyone
he met, until it was
too late

Here are ten traits seen in Kleason that are apparent in psychopaths including Ted.  

First, Kleason was incredibly personable, endearing himself to all who met him. He was a male counterpart to Aunt Bee. 

Second, he found religious communities to be prime resources for victims. While Ted seemed comfortable embedding himself among Baptists, Kleason preferred Mormon communities due to their benevolence. 

Third, neither displayed affective empathy for others. 

Fourth, like Ted, Kleason was highly sensitive to personal slights, both real and imagined. Angered that his Mormon church failed to provide services he expected, Kleason murdered two young male missionaries he befriended. This lovable, endearing character has been called the real Texas chainsaw massacre villain. 

Fifth, he constructed a fantasy world to explain his odd behavior. As Ted imagined himself to be Jerry in the movie, Conspiracy Theory, Kleason imagined himself a war hero and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. All were fantasies of Ted and Kleason. All seem intended to dupe others. 

Sixth, both projected impeccable moral astuteness; Ted as a religious zealot and Kleason as a war hero. They were so convincingly affable that no one imagined they had extensive documented criminal histories and, so, no one bothered to research their pasts. 

Seventh, Kleason relocated to avoid detectionHe moved to England after serving time on death row and after befriending a lonely woman through correspondence. Kleason simply didn't tell British authorities he was a convicted murderer who spent time on death row and was released due to a technicality. Ted found residence in the homes of friends and family, hiding his criminal history. 

Would he have fooled you?
Friendly Ted fools
most everyone he meets,
until it is too late

Eighth, Kleason lived a parasitic lifestyle at the expense of others. In England he actually married his victim and wore his fake medal of honor at the wedding ceremony. Years later she sneaked out of her home to elude his constant abuse. Kleason lived alone in her home! Ted lived a parasitic lifestyle, taking advantage of those who are foolish enough to trust him. Ted boasted of plans to take my office after I downsized and moved out. The similarities are uncanny. 

Ninth, both were outed after court documents were made public and their criminal histories exposed.

Kleason died in prison in England. Last we heard, Ted was living with a relative then found an apartment from which he has since been evicted.  

Tenth, both were very convincing and deceived nearly everyone. 


In the above 4-second video clip, Bernie Madoff's daughter-in-law wonders aloud, "...how one person could be such a sweet guy and be such a monster at the same time." 


• Deception perception

Ted, however, didn't dupe everyone.

There were others — many others — who sensed Ted's dark side immediately. That presents an enigma: Why are some of us explicitly gullible? Why do we not detect the inner Francis personality of psychopaths while others — like blood hounds — possess a heightened sense of awareness?

Suffice it to say for now: It is gullibility that makes victims vulnerable. We'll explain that odd phenomenon later.  

During those earlier years Ted, unbeknownst to me, was frequently being sued. If my calculations are correct, some form of court action occurred about every six weeks on average for a duration of about fifteen years. In fact, public records suggest that he was taken to court more times than any other person in the history of the county.

I was unaware that he was being prosecuted for check deception — three times! 

My naïveté was so ingrained that his abrupt months-long disappearance was dismissed as a mere lapse of spiritual discernment. It never dawned on my incredulous mind that he was in jail; sentenced to a one-year term for scamming a host of local businesses and individuals through check deception. See the document below. 

One-year jail sentence for check deception. Click here to view image.
After his first conviction in 1986, court records indicate he was required to make immediate restitution to his victim. Click here to see document

Nonetheless, he continued his criminal check-deception activity.

In 1988 court records indicate he was convicted again. This second conviction required restitution and included a one-year suspended sentence. Click here to see document.

He remained undeterred.

In 1993 a third conviction appears in court records. The third conviction landed him a "1 YEAR SENTENCE TO THE BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL," the document reveals. What's more, the court — and, no doubt, local banking institutions — revoked his right to hold checking accounts. "HAVE NO CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR 2 YEARS," the document says. 

The plaintiff was the State of Indiana. See the document above.

We wonder how many other bad checks he wrote. Victims often take the loss rather than bother to seek prosecution.

• Duck-and-dupe

I call this strategy, "duck-and-dupe." Ted ducked out of sight making himself effectively "invisible" or, in legal terms, "judgement proof." 

A creditor can garnish your wages, place a levy on your bank account, and/or place a lien against any real estate that you own. However, if you don't have any income or property that the creditor can legally go after, then you are what is often referred to as judgment proof.

With no funds or property, creditors were left with few options. One of those options was to garnish his wages. That option ended, as we'll see later, when Ted abruptly quit his job. This allowed him to continue to dupe others with little fear of being sued or prosecuted. 

Here's  how it worked: 

When Ted re-emerged, sans bank accounts and credit cards, he shrewdly shrouded his dishonesty in a cloak of spiritual astuteness. He pretended to have voluntarily disavowed banking institutions as instruments of a satanic world system. 

Ted's personality was as palatable as warm apple-cinnamon pie. People loved him; particularly Christians. Very few were aware it was all an act; a put on. 

Ted would not present himself as a criminal with a trove of court documents proving him to be a deceiver. Rather, he would present himself as a spiritual giant; a veritable opponent of the coming anti-Christ! He would not present himself as Francis, but as Aunt Bee.

• Deceiving "the very elect"

Ironically, deceivers such as Ted were mentioned by Jesus, himself, as evidence of the imminent appearance of the anti-Christ.

Jesus said,
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Emphasis added; Matt. 24:24)
The anti-Christ, as depicted by Darbyist Christians, is portrayed to be the ultimate psychopath. 

Ted is not only a type of anti-Christ; he appears to be a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy concerning the advent of the anti-ChristThey shall deceive the very elect. 

Ironic, indeed.

How will the anti-Christ successfully deceive Christians? To answer that question, simply consider Ted: How are so many Christians successfully deceived by Ted?

In Matthew 24 the disciples asked Jesus, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

The response:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you."

Granted, Ted never claimed to be Jesus and his "great signs and wonders" may be wanting. But his cunning ability to deceive so many — including many professing Christians — through his Aunt Bee act demonstrates our capacity for deception and punctures gaping holes in the arrogance of church folk who imagine themselves immune from such duplicity.  

It is, after all, called check deception

Ted's deception transcends mere opinion. It's documented repeatedly as public court records. One could actually go to the clerk's office at the Bartholomew County, Indiana courthouse, sit down at a public computer, and verify the authenticity of these documents. I know. I did just that. You will see a few of the documents below.

Part 7: Duping others.

• A life of deception  

His repeat offenses smack of revocation of conditional release; a tell-tale sign of a psychopathic personality. We'll delve into that later.

Ted refused to renew (or cannot renew) his driver's license and claimed he had disavowed his social security number. The reason eventually became apparent: He was avoiding creditors and making himself judgement proof to avoid further lawsuits and prosecutions. Then, after a flurry of wage garnishments — all made evident in public records — Ted simply quit his job.

Ted divested himself of most of his meager possessions. He owned no vehicles. Ted either walked everywhere he went or bummed rides from friends. 

(Court records indicate that Ted had once been arrested for DWI — driving while intoxicated. It could be that the state of Indiana revoked his license due to repeat offenses, though we saw no documentation to verify that supposition. Most likely his driver's license was revoked after refusing to appear in court.)

Considering the wage garnishments were taking sizable chunks from his paycheck — perhaps most of his paychecks at times — abandoning his job may have been more of a blessing than a sacrifice. It could be that Ted was working for less than minimum wage after garnishments were deducted. Or, no paycheck at all. So, from Ted's perspective he was working for next to nothing after garnishments were deducted. He may have literally been working for nothing after garnishments. 

His Aunt Bee persona was a righteous and stalwart Christian withdrawing from a satanic world system. His Francis personality was a scamming psychopath so immersed in his own stubborn arrogance that he refused employment. He chose, instead, to live parasitically off his victims. 

• Self harm

Any effort to seek revenge against Ted is pointless. Ted does more harm to himself than I could ever do. He is effectively homeless, deprives himself of a steady job, deprives himself of legally driving, surrendered his privilege to have a checking account, successfully made more enemies than one can imagine, has created a lengthy criminal record, been sentenced to jail, made himself a convict, destroyed his marriage, etc. I could never cause Ted so much harm if I tried. I could not even begin to punish him as severely as he punishes himself. 

Why does he hurt himself? Why does he prefer to live the life of a criminal on the run?

The answer comes as we ask ourselves, "Why does a drug addict choose to live on the streets in abject poverty?"

The drug addict seeks to find pleasure by stimulating the release of dopamine in his brain. This is accomplished by taking drugs. The drive for pleasure trumps everything.

Apparently Ted's "drug" is scamming others. It appears to give him immense pleasure by stimulating the release of dopamine. He appears to be addicted to scamming. That trumps everything else. Duper's delight is an apparent expression of the psychopath's dopamine high.

As will be noted later, Ted is reminiscent of the demoniac who slashed himself (see Mark 5:5). Ted seems to be in a perpetual state of self abuse. Drug addicts can be cured through rehabilitation. Psychopathy is innate and, as such, is incurable. Psychopathy is a trait of an atypical brain.

Beginning at 26:05, the following documentary devotes a few minutes to explaining the pleasure center of the psychopath's mind and how it dominates his behavior. Click on the image below to view.


 • My psychopath is an atheist and worse

Ted is an atheist, in my opinion. 

Granted, he claims to be a Christian, but his behavior defies his professed faith in God.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, just as anyone can claim to be a watermelon. Claiming to be so doesn't make one so. Rather, it may suggest one to be delusional, a liar, or both.  

It's called practical atheism. That is, the individual may profess a religion but, in practice, he is an atheist. 

Imagine a man who declares himself to be a bona fide, born again, Bible-believing Christian. "I was saved at an early age," he says. "I immediately felt the call of God on my life to serve him. I love the Lord with all my heart and look forward with great anticipation to his soon return."

The man adds, "I'm just kidding. I'm actually an atheist."

Had the man never admitted to being an atheist, we would take him at his word. 

I never heard Ted say the words, "I'm just kidding. I'm actually an atheist." 

That is how psychopaths manage to successfully prey on Christians. Like wolves in sheep's clothing, they are readily welcomed into the fold. 

Ted's actions, however, spoke louder than words. That's why we are admonished to test the spirits (I John 4:1), prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and inspect the fruits of professed Christians (Matthew 7:16). 

Jude's epistle seems to accurately describe Ted.  

• Ted creeps into congregations who are unaware of his lengthy documented and undocumented criminal history. His sordid lifestyle both defies and denies "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." [See verse 4.]
• Ted seems possessed "by angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation." These demons appear to cause him to wander; continually being evicted and relocating and constantly looking at real estate, posing as a potential buyer. Such is a trait common to psychopaths. [See verse 6.]
• Ted despises dominion and speaks evil of people of character. These are also common traits of psychopaths who are domineering and pathological slanderers. [See verse 8.]

• Ted forgets that even Michael the Archangel refused to utter a word of Slander against Satan himself. Rather, Michael understood that such rebuke is reserved for God. It appears that Ted is possessed by a demon named Slander who uses Ted's vile tongue to arrogantly assume the role of God. [See verse 9.]  

• Ted is the aimless cloud, fruitless tree, and wandering star described in verses 12 and 13.

• Ted is the lustful murmurer and complainer who speaks "great swelling words" to take advantage of others. [See verse 16.]

• Ted is the sensual one who, "having not the Spirit," separates himself from the assembly; only attending church to prey upon unwary believers. [See verse 19.] We'll discuss this psychopathic trait in the following section.

Ted appears to be a quintessential counterfeit Christian aptly described by Jude's epistle. 

• He also abjectly defies verse 22 which reads, "Be merciful to those who doubt." During the tenure of my faith crisis, Ted never made an effort to shepherd me back into the fold (for which I am grateful), but assumed the role of the wolf who preyed on the lone sheep who strayed (for which I am not grateful). He was neither merciful nor graceful. Rather, he displayed the traits of a psychopath.

• Preying on sheep

Psychopaths who prey on the sympathetic nature of church folk are often masters at verbalizing religious lingo. This may be akin to language loading, a term coined by Dr. Robert J. Lifton, a psychologist who specializes in thought reform.

Francis Bavier not only knew how to act the role of Aunt Bee. She knew how to speak like Aunt Bee. Her communication transcended mere words. It included verbal tones, facial expressions, body language, etc.  

The apostle Paul explained this psychopathic phenomenon in Titus 1:16: "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

Ted professed to know God, but his works denied him. His words declared his Christianity. His works declared his disbelief. He spoke like a Christian. He behaved like an infidel. Ted's godless works are codified in public court documents. They are unmistakable.

Again, it is evidence of his Aunt Bee act (pretending to be a Christian) and his genuine Francis personality (denying God by his works). 

Most atheists I know have a much higher moral threshold than Ted. That is, he is the most impudent of atheists. 

This is reflected in I Timothy 5:8 where we learn that those who fail to provide for "their own" are actually worse than infidels (that is, atheists). "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

In my opinion, Ted is not just a practical atheist. He is worse than an atheist. Again, "...and is worse than an infidel."

Ted refused to use his social security number making it virtually impossible to be gainfully employed and provide for "his own." Scamming unsuspecting friends, incidentally, would not qualify as 'providing for one's own.'

Rather than provide for his own, Ted preferred to live the life of a parasite; often hiding out in the basements of the elderly and living off the subsistence of his victims. He was ducking out of sight where he could dupe others with minimal fear of consequences. He was ducking and duping; always in a state of flux; constantly moving from place to place. 

• Soul winning? Or soul losing?

Consider the victims of Ted's scams. 

Then consider how many were turned away from the gospel after being duped by a self-proclaimed Christian. How many others — convinced that Ted was a true Christian — watched him commit scam after scam and concluded that Christianity is an ineffective hoax?

What's more, one has to wonder if Ted ever witnessed to the people he scammed.

Witnessing is a term used by evangelicals. It means to present the gospel to others in an effort to convert them or "get them saved."

How would Ted's victims respond had Ted witnessed to them? How will they respond when others witness to them in the future? 

From a Christian's perspective, we must wonder how many people will spend an eternity in hell because one psychopath led a duplicitous life.

No wonder the apostle Paul declared that people like Ted are worse then infidels; worse than atheists. 

• Friendship with an angry man

Ted presents himself as affable, warm, and friendly. His demeanor reminds me of serial killer, Ted Bundy, who also presented himself as affable, warm, and friendly when it suited his interest.

Ted Bundy's dark side would occasionally emerge in a demonic rage. Likewise, my Christian friend, Ted, possessed an explosive temper that would emerge with demon-like ferocity when he felt slighted. 

That is to say that both Teds presented a fake Aunt Bee persona that masked their underlying, demonic anger.

By retaining a friendship with Ted, I violated Proverbs 22:24 which admonishes us:  "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:"

The result? "Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul."

That is, Ted's anger rubs off on those who befriend him. The Apostle Paul alluded to this when he warned us, "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." [1 Corinthians 15:33]

Those who continue to maintain a friendship with my "dear friend," Ted, are violating the biblical principle mandated in Proverbs 22:24. I have personally witnessed the demonic anger that possessed them after they conversed with Ted and exposed themselves to his slander. 

• Unequally yoked

Using Ted's logic — not mine — Christians should avoid any contact, conversation, or involvement of any kind with atheists. 

He abused a biblical passage (II Cor. 6:14) which reads, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Most English translations prefer the term 'lawlessness' over 'unrighteousness.' Lawlessness, of course, befits most anyone who holds the county record for being sued and prosecuted.

Again, using his logic, Christians should avoid him. He is, after all, a practical atheist. He is one who professes faith but does not possess faith. He is as lawless as Lucifer; a trait common among psychopaths. 

Ted urged others to avoid the "atheist" he had scammed. His motive, I presume, was to protect himself. He suspected his victim would divulge his true character if given the opportunity. For example, Ted would not want you to read the article you are reading this very moment. It exposes his criminal past and godless character. 

Applying his misrepresentation of "yoked," one could argue that Ted and I continue to be "yoked." We are bound by his debt to me for commissions he stole and an estimated $50,000 in books he absconded. Until Ted returns the books, or makes full restitution, we will continue to be "yoked."

We should also ask, What constitutes an unbeliever?

My friend Ted seemed to think unbeliever and atheist were synonymous. Granted, an atheist would be an unbeliever. However, Mormons embrace a belief system that is often divergent from traditional Christianity. They don't believe as traditional Christians believe and are, therefore, unbelievers. Both Catholics and Orthodox Jews don't believe what Baptists and protestants believe. They are, therefore, unbelievers. 

Was the Apostle Paul effectively saying, "Have no association with atheists, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, pagans, and Buddhists because they don't believe"?

• Evil fruit

Psychopaths don't like to be exposed. Nor do demons.

However, Matthew 7:16 instructs Christians to inspect the fruits of professed believers noting that "a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

A tall stack of court records documenting years of deception would, in my opinion, qualify as "evil fruit" and confirm that Ted is a "corrupt tree."

Ted's evil fruit is exposed, whether he likes it or not. 

In his true hypocritical fashion, Ted maintained business relationships with non-Christians. One of the accounts I helped Ted acquire was a whisky distillery in Kentucky. Ted had no qualms being "yoked" with a whisky distillery, but encouraged Christians to avoid conversations with his "atheist" victim. 

Ted was once employed by a man who professed to be an unbeliever. Ted had no problem being "unequally yoked" with him. Ted's hypocrisy was evident. 

What's more, Ted seldom attended church in defiance of Hebrews 10:24 that warns against "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together."

So there you have it. Ted was "unequally yoked" with unbelievers while eschewing the assembly of believers. And all the while elevating himself as a spiritual dynamo; a veritable angel of light. 

What to do?

Christians who believe Ted is demonic should avoid him for that reason alone. 

It is my opinion that Christians should avoid Ted — not because he is demonic or an atheist — but because he is a dangerously deceitful psychopath. 

According to Psychology Today:
Psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack conscience and empathy, making them manipulative, volatile and often (but by no means always) criminal. They are an object of popular fascination and clinical anguish: adult psychopathy is largely impervious to treatment... [source].

• Glib and superficial personality

Psychopaths are glib and display superficial charm. Many can see the act. Those of us who cannot are often destined for disaster. 

The second cue was his apathy. He knew what he was doing was wrong. He just didn't care. 

Again, psychopaths are not crazy. They know what they are doing is wrong. They don't care. Their lack of true empathy is a hallmark of psychopathy. 

• It's biologial, genetic, and untreatable

Researchers believe that psychopaths are biologically different from the norm. Brain scans, they say, reveal they are pathologically destined for psychopathic behavior. A part of the brain, the amygdalae (plural), doesn't fully function. The amygdalae are the emotional center of the brain. It is believed that the amygdalae of psychopaths are incapable of producing normal empathy. 

Psychopaths don't care because they cannot care. 

It is my unsubstantiated conjecture that psychopaths may also be pathologically deficient in mirror neurons

Some psychotherapists conclude that talk therapy (counseling) actually has a negative impact. Some believe that counseling sessions do nothing more than allow psychopaths to learn how to manipulate counselors. 

Psychopaths don't change because they cannot change. 

It's akin to a person born without eyes. No amount of counseling or drug therapy can alter the missing components: sight. When related to psychopaths it is believed that no amount of counseling or drug therapy can alter the missing component: empathy.

Dr. Robert Hare used the analogy of color blindness. "Nothing we can do is going to instill a sense of empathy," he said. 

You may listen to Dr. Hare's comments via YouTube here. 

• Psychopaths do care; about THEMSELVES

An article in WebMD.com reveals that empathy-sensitive areas of psychopaths' brains fail to become active when viewing photos of others in pain. However, when they imagine themselves in pain, the activity is higher than normal. 

What's more, psychopaths actually find pleasure when viewing others in pain.

When highly psychopathic inmates imagined themselves in these painful situations, they showed higher-than-normal activity in certain brain regions involved in empathy for pain. But these regions failed to become active when they imagined others in pain. 

Moreover, when imagining other people in pain, highly psychopathic inmates showed increased activity in a brain area known to be involved in pleasure, according to the study, which was published Sept. 24 in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Hurting others gives psychopaths pleasure. You may recall hearing or reading about serial killers who, as children, harmed small animals. Such actions are repulsive to most of us. The young psychopath, however, found that harming small animals stimulated the pleasure center of the child's brain. 

Ted Bundy achieved pleasure in physically murdering others through acts of violence. Ted achieves pleasure in "murdering" the reputations of others through acts of Slander*. Bundy used his hands to take the lives of others. Ted uses his tongue to take the reputations of others. In both instances, pleasure is achieved in causing others pain.

*(You will note the word Slander is often capitalized as a name to denote personification as if a demonic personality.)

• Most psychopaths are not violent 

We have a misconception about psychopaths. We expect them to be violent. Hollywood and the news media have created that misconception with characters like Hannibal Lecter and personalities like serial killer Ted Bundy. 

Most psychopaths are not violent. They are, however, highly deceptive and manipulative. 

• Irresponsibility 

Ted was a church member. Nonetheless, he would disappear for weeks — sometimes months — at a time. 

That was the third cue. Psychopaths are superficial and undependable. Church members often quipped that Ted was dependably undependable. 

Ted changed his address constantly. He seldom lived at the same location longer than a few months. 

That was the fourth cue

• Demons vs angels

Some believe psychopaths are actually demonic.

For the record, I reject this notion out of hand. Ted's behavior is not due to demonic possession. Conversely, I would argue that our concept of demons may be derived from psychopathic behavior; at least in part. 

Throughout this article I refer to demons in an allegorical, not literal, sense. 

Nonetheless, I can readily understand why many faithful Christians embrace this perception: Ted did seem to fit the biblical profile of a demoniac. 

The following is a profile of a person possessed by demons. Coincidentally, it is also the profile of Ted. 

• Seeking a dwelling place

Ted was and remains peripatetic. That is, he is a wanderer. He seldom resides in the same space for more than a few months; often being forced to relocate by eviction. 

Ted can often be seen walking the streets of his hometown, an outcome of having no driver's license. This is likely due to a court order. One who refuses to attend a mandated court hearing may be coerced by having his driver's license suspended until he shows up. Ted's psychopathic stubbornness and egomania likely compelled him to defy the court order. He would walk rather than drive for the rest of his life. 

Many theologians believe demons are fallen angels who were evicted from heaven and cursed to roam the earth, constantly seeking a place to inhabit; but always dissatisfied.

I didn't know it at the time, but my friend Ted moved frequently because he refused to pay rent. Like demons being evicted from heaven, Ted was constantly being evicted by his landlords. 

A related oddity was seen: Ted was constantly shopping for real estate. He would contact real estate agents to arrange to view properties, even though he had no means of purchasing any of them. He once considered buying a small ranch, imagining he would boarder horses. A month later he was making multiple visits to a houseboat. Another time he was treading across 39 acres imagining the house he would build. Another time he was meeting an agent to view an apartment. Again, he was checking out a country house then later walking through a vacated mini-mansion that recently came on the market. 

Fallen angels cast out of heaven
I accompanied Ted on many such occasions as he walked from room to room imagining himself living in the home or apartment. It never occurred to me that I was in the company of a legion of restless fallen angels who had been "house hunting" for thousands of years. 

I suppose Ted had visited at least a hundred such properties; probably more. It was bizarre behavior to say the least. Still, I was duped by his Aunt Bee act. 

Ted once confided that his father frequently moved his family from home to home. Eventually his father abandoned the family for a woman younger than Ted's mother. Pathological psychopathy, they say, is inherited.  

I wonder how many drifters and transients could be considered demon possessed; fallen angels inhabiting the bodies of men in a millennial-long, compulsive search for a home.

• Unrestrained 

As the biblical demoniac could not be chained, Ted abhorred restraints. He had no permanent job, his marriage failed, he could not maintain a long-term business association, he could not stay in the same home, etc. 

I vividly recall Ted holding up his thumb during a conversation as he was slandering his former boss. "He wants me under his thumb," Ted said; then pressed his thumb on the car's dashboard to emphasize his point. 

Ted would be bound by no one.  

Rules, laws, and regularity were for others, it seems. Ted once walked off with a box design manual explaining he planned to give it to his son. In fact he simply stole it from the box manufacturing plant. The book's value was about $50; I had purchased an identical book a few weeks earlier.

That was the fifth cue: The fact that Ted would steal a single, $50 book with no sense of guilt or remorse sent a resounding signal; but I wasn't listening. A thief is a thief. If he will steal $50, he will steal $2,000, business accounts, or $50,000. 

Ironically, as you will read later, Ted stole an entire inventory of books I had published. I estimate the inventory of books he stole from me had a face value of well over $50,000!

I should have known. Jesus said in Luke 16:10b"...and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

He seemed to think nothing of walking out the door with company-owned materials; without compunction. 

Ted often boasted of carrying an unregistered handgun, though I don't recall ever seeing it. He also boasted of possessing no gun permit of any kind. Again, rules are for everyone else. 

Possessing a gun without a permit is illegal in Indiana. Click here to view an example of a man named James A Jones being prosecuted for carrying a handgun without a license. 

Ted's life philosophy seemed to be: Rules are for fools. 

• Lack of realistic long-term goals

Cue number six is the fact that psychopaths lack long-term goals. I missed another cue. 

Google maps street view of Ted's home.
According to court documents, he was apparently
evicted by the owner (his employer) when he abruptly
quit his job. 
Ted was gainfully employed at one time. His boss treated him like a son. Ted's Aunt Bee personality endeared him to gullible people, including his boss. 

Ted's boss secured a house for him. Apparently the employer sensed Ted's irresponsibility and deducted a portion of his paycheck as mortgage or rent payments. Considering that Ted's paychecks were being savaged by court-ordered garnishments, it's possible that he had little to live on. It appears that his employer graciously arranged living quarters for him; a comfortable home south of Columbus, Indiana. That would give Ted a roof over his head — a quite nice one, I might add — while avoiding creditors and side-stepping wage garnishments. 

Eviction by former employer. Click here to view image. 
• Impulsivity

Ted abruptly quit his job for no apparent reason. Nonetheless he continued to live in the house supplied by his former employer. Years later I learned Ted's boss filed a lawsuit to evict him. 

That was cue number sevenPsychopaths only live in the present. Quitting a job doesn't bother them. They simply cannot fathom the future beyond the moment. 

Ted's former wife described him as a dreamer, he once told me. He always had grandiose notions but never seemed to have the gumption, foresight, and intelligence to fulfill those dreams. What's more, his ideas were — in my opinion — absurd. 

• Promiscuity

That brings us to cue number eight. Psychopaths are given to sexual promiscuity. Ted created a scandal when he married a high school girl. The marriage was short lived, but produced a son. 

I later learned that Ted was pursuing a young woman; the daughter of a physician. Court records reveal a woman had filed a restraining order against him. It was likely the same woman.

On another occasion he was kicked out of a Sears department store for making advances to a young female clerk in the store's shoe department. He once expressed frustration that his son, now an adult, accused him of flirting with women. 

Ted also had an ongoing Internet love affair with a white woman in Cameroon who, for some reason, could never seem to send him a clear photograph of herself. Still, Ted managed to send the woman support for her "missionary" work. 

• Revocation of conditional release

Ted disappeared from my life for a period of months. I had no idea why or where he was. It didn't occur to me that "Aunt Bee" was in jail. 

I was wholly unaware of my friend's criminal behavior. Low-intelligent psychopaths often engage in serial scams; believing themselves to be brilliant. 

They skillfully hide their Francis personality. Their ability to fool gullible people likely convinces psychopaths that they are smarter than those they deceive. 

When he re-emerged I had no clue he had thrice been prosecuted for check deception. 

After the first offense the criminal court ordered him to make immediate restitution to his victims. Months later he was prosecuted again for continuing to write bad checks. The second offense produced a suspended one-year sentence. Again, he returned to his criminal behavior; but the third offense landed him a one-year sentence to the Bartholomew County Indiana jail. All offenses are canonized as court records and are available for examination by the public.

Nonetheless, I remained clueless. I was still good buddies with "Aunt Bee" and was unaware, at the time, that I had befriended and unconditionally trusted a convicted criminal. 

Psychopaths thrive on gullible Good Samaritans who are blind to their true Francis personalities. 

I thought it curious that my Aunt Bee friend frequently pointed out his character flaws in others. He often accused others of being arrogant, for example. I later learned the reason for this behavior. 

When I eventually saw the court records I was dumbfounded. How could I have been so deceived? 

• Choosing victims

Here's cue number nine. Psychopaths select victims they perceive as vulnerable. This vulnerability is often determined by personal affects such as speech patterns, behavior, and body language.

Serial killer Ted Bundy notoriously said he selected victims by the way they held their heads. 

Based on Bundy's assertion, a psychologist suspected psychopaths choose their victims by observing body language. 

To test her theory, the psychologist video recorded a number of volunteers from the back as they walked alone in a hallway. The psychologist then showed the videos to known psychopaths. 

The psychopaths were asked to identify the volunteers most likely to be victims of violent crimes. The psychopaths were nearly unanimous in selecting the same person. Apparently that person's body language revealed a lack of confidence. She appeared to be a wounded gazelle. There was something in her gait that set her apart. The psychologist confirmed that the woman had, indeed, been the only volunteer previously attacked by a violent rapist. 

Writing in Psychology Today, Marisa Mauro Psy.D. noted: 

In a study by Wheeler, Book and Costello of Brock University, individuals who self reported more traits associated with psychopathy were more apt to correctly identify individuals with a history of victimization. 

She then concluded:

 I am convinced, in the course of observation alone, that certain personal characteristics are associated with tendency to be on the receiving end of bullying such as harassment and manipulation. I have found that the demonstration of confidence through body language, speech and affective expression, for example, provides some protection.

As an individual diagnosed as autistic and with Asperger's Syndrome, I apparently project traits that strongly signal "wounded gazelle". Ted, the psychopath, correctly sensed my vulnerability. He then projected himself as a trusted friend and moved in for the kill. I foolishly believed his ruse.

(Some psychologists note that psychopaths gravitate towards religious affinity groups such as churches. The psychopath declares himself a Christian and is immediately trusted by members of the congregation. Parishioners accept the psychopath as one of their own; a member of the group to be trusted. The psychopath views the church members as prospects for scamming. He views their kindness as weakness.)

• Genuine kindness is viewed as a weakness

Ted interpreted my kindness as a weakness. He was correct. My altruistic loyalty and lack of cognitive (shallow) empathy made me the ideal candidate to be scammed. 

This, I suppose, is why he thought himself brilliant. He observed my foolishness in trusting him, realized he possessed no such loyalty, then confused his lack of affective, deep empathy with advanced intelligence. He likely perceived affective empathy as a trait of fools. Ted would never be fooled as I was fooled. Therefore, he concluded, he was smarter. 

More likely my friend suffered from the Dunning-Kruger effect; "... a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."
Click here to watch a short, 5-minute video
explaining the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Stated colloquially, my psychopath was too stupid to know he was stupid. Stated academically, he suffered from a the Dunning–Kruger effect.

That raises a question: If Ted's behavior is driven by immutable pathological conditions, should he be held responsible for his actions? After all, it seems he literally could not help himself. 

Then, again, we could ask: Should Ted Bundy be held responsible for his actions? 

What were my psychopath's actions?

Part 3: The scams

To my knowledge I never did anything to harm Ted. I only tried to help my friend by giving him a place to stay, help him earn an income, provided him food and transportation, cover his cell phone expense, and other acts of kindness. 

It occurs to me that some will love others in spite of their depravity. Some will betray others in spite of their acts of kindness. 

• The first scam

Cue number ten emerged with a phone call from Ted. Again, I hadn't heard from him in many months. Ted had a business offer. A man in a nearby town owned a warehouse filled with surplus stock. Among the items were hundreds of end tables. Were I to buy the end tables, Ted would sell them and we would share the profit. I purchased ten of the tables. Together we loaded them into my van and delivered them to Ted's home. (At the time he was living in the basement of an elderly couple. Psychopaths, you'll recall, tend to be parasites.)

Ted sold the end tables and kept all the proceeds for himself. Realizing Ted was going through a difficult time, I foolishly overlooked the theft. After all, I thought, what are friends for? 

He played his Aunt Bee role so well that I overlooked the emerging Francis. 

• The second scam

A few months later Ted informed me that his mother and adult son were stranded out of state without cash to pay their motel bill. He asked me to loan him $100 to wire to his son. 

Again, what are friends for? 

Together we went to a Western Union office at a local Kroger grocery store and wired the money. Ted was playing his Aunt Bee role and I foolishly imagined myself the benevolent Good Samaritan. 

I assumed Ted would repay the loan within a few days. He never repaid the loan. He never even mentioned it. 

• The third scam

A few months later he asked me to loan his son $2,000. Apparently his son had lost his job and needed the extra cash to make ends meet. Blind as I was to Ted's Francis personality, I was beginning to catch on. I explained to Ted that I would loan him the money on the condition that I would be repaid before April 15. I was taking the $2,000 from my income tax fund, I explained. 

Ted changed his mind. Rather than loan him $2,000, Ted suggested I visit his son and pretend to purchase a junk Cadillac his son owned. Ted would take the car and have it restored, then present it to his son as a surprise birthday gift. 

How foolish could I be? you ask. 

I went along with the scheme, handed Ted's son a check for $2,000 and even paid to have it towed to a location of Ted's choosing. I gave Ted the title and the keys. As you may have guessed the $2,000 was never repaid and, last I heard, the Cadillac was sold for junk. 

Ted not only scammed me for $2,000, he also schemed a "bonus" for himself by reselling the Cadillac for junk. 

The Cadillac was, in fact, a piece of junk. I never would have purchased the Cadillac under normal circumstances. In fact, the car was so dilapidated, I would not have taken if his son have given it to me. It was just that bad. 

I wondered at the time how foolish Ted's son must have been to have purchased the junk Cadillac to begin with. I later wonder how foolish I must have been to have purchased the same junk Cadillac. 

By now you may think I'm a bit of a sap for allowing Ted to continually steal from me. You would be correct. You may have also noticed that Ted started with a small scam — the end tables — and progressively conned me with larger scams.

(Here's an interesting side note: Ted said he planned to present the restored car to his son as a birthday gift. Yet Ted refused to acknowledge holidays and birthdays, citing a Biblical prohibition on celebrating special days. Consequently, he refused to observe Christmas or birthdays. He refused to give Christmas or birthday gifts to his family. In reality I suspect Ted was, again, abusing and misapplying biblical principles to cover his bad behavior; in this case, being a stingy cheapskate who chose not to provide for his own.) 

The largest scams were yet to come; but still I believed in Aunt Bee. 

• Pathological lying

Cue number eleven emerged when Ted casually announced he had voluntarily surrendered his driver's license, Social Security number, refused to use credit cards, and even decided to have no bank accounts. 

Ted explained that his decision to live off the grid was a matter of deeply held religious convictions. A global system was forming that would usher in the anti-Christ, he explained. Ted had no desire to be part of such a world system, and so he disconnected himself and was living for Jesus. 

It seems Ted possesses an uncanny aptitude for explaining 'big misunderstandings.' It is a primary component in his repertoire of deceptions.  

Mel Gibson as Jerry in Conspiracy Theory
Ted suggested I watch the movie, Conspiracy Theory, starring Mel Gibson. Ted explained he was living a life similar to the main character, Jerry. Again, Ted was acting out a role to hide his psychopathic personality. 

In reality Ted had been ordered by the county court to have no checking accounts after his third conviction for check deception. He had no credit cards because he had no credit. He apparently refused to obtain (or could not obtain) a driver's license or use his Social Security number to avoid creditors. 

While he portrayed himself to be Jerry of Conspiracy Theory, many others viewed him as a wandering homeless creep who existed in a bizarre fantasy world of his own making. To their — or our — demise, some extended compassion to this pathetic creature, wholly unaware they were opening themselves to a legion of demons.  

In hindsight I realize that Ted's life was a lie. He was not hiding from the anti-Christ. He was hiding from creditors. He did not surrender his checking account. That privilege was denied him by a court of law. He was not Mel Gibson's character hiding out from the prying eyes of an impending world government. He was a parasite living off gullible people; many of them elderly. 

Notice that Ted cloaked his Francis personality with religion. He was an actor playing the role of a religious zealot. It made convenient duck-and-dupe cover for his true personality and endeared him to a large number of Christians. It was if his demons were pretending to be angels of light. 

Years later I would learn Ted had been taken to court, perhaps, fifty times or more within nearly fifteen years. The exact number is unknown. There may be court documents I've not yet seen. You may view some of those documents by clicking here.

Living off the grid was an effective method of avoiding more lawsuits. 

For the moment, however, I was still believing Ted was the best of friends; a male counterpart to Andy's Aunt Bee. 

• The fourth scam

Ted came to me with another business proposition. He had befriended the owner of a box manufacturing plant in a nearby town. Ted and I would sell boxes and share the commissions fifty-fifty. I, of course, would do all the driving because Ted had no driver's license. I would cover travel expenses including meals and my beloved Aunt Bee would provide the expertise. He had, after all, worked for years as a box designer before quitting and being evicted by his former employer. 

Ted supplied the plant owner with his son's Social Security number. On paper, his son was the employee. Paychecks were payable to Ted's son. 

That was cue number twelve

My friend claimed that a paycheck was part of the world system. That's because a paycheck requires a Social Security number and that entangles one with the anti-Christ. My friend was effectively sacrificing his son to the anti-Christ! 

I missed the cue. 

• Parasitic lifestyle

Cue thirteen came when Ted was evicted from his basement home by his elderly host. The woman's husband had died and she was relocating — without Ted. He was still playing the role of Aunt Bee and I was playing the role of the Good Samaritan who turned his foolish cheek at every offense. 

I told Ted he could stay at my office until he found a permanent place to live. At first Ted moved in with a few essentials such as toiletries and a change of clothes. As the weeks passed he would sneak in other belongings, tucking them throughout the office as not to interfere with my business. Ted lived in my office for about three years, sleeping on the floor and bathing at the restroom sink. 

Eventually he unloaded a huge upright bureau just inside the door to my office, nearly blocking the entrance. It stayed there for months until I demanded Ted move it. He was nonplussed. How dare I tell him what to do!?

Over the years Ted lived as a parasite in the homes of, perhaps, dozens of gullible hosts.

• The fifth scam

Cue number fourteen surfaced when, thinking I was being a good friend, bought Ted a cell phone and even paid for his phone service. The only stipulation was that he limit his calls. At the time cell phone services charged hefty fees for overages. On two occasions Ted ran up his month's phone bill over $400. On both occasions he failed to pay for the overages. In fact, he didn't even offer to pay for the overages. 

Embedded in the recesses of my mind was the parable taught by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 25:35-49. By caring for the homeless, one is caring for Jesus.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in?

Jesus answered: 

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

I thought I was a good Christian and a faithful friend. I was not only helping a friend in need; I was vicariously helping Jesus. In reality I was a sap; a sucker for a psychopath. 

How stupid could I be? Unbelievably stupid. I was convinced Aunt Bee was a real person. 

• Turning point: Discovering Ted's Francis persona

Cue number fifteen arose while we were on a sales trip. The two of us were dining at a Lee's Chicken restaurant in Stanford, Kentucky. While returning from the restroom, I approached Ted from behind. He was talking on the cell phone I had purchased. He was using data for which I was paying.

From the movie, They Live,
Roddy Piper sees him as
he really is. 
I heard my name mentioned and briefly stopped to listen. To my utter shock and surprise I overheard Ted conspiring to keep one of our accounts for himself. From that moment forward I never again viewed Ted as merely Aunt Bee. Francis was exposed. I saw — for the first time — the Francis personality that I should have seen all along.

It's reminiscent of John Carpenter's 1988 movie, They Live, in which the lead actor suddenly discovers the true identity of aliens disguised as humans. The difference, of course, that my experience was not fiction, but reality. 

I took my seat and Ted quickly ended the phone call. He continued to play the character of the charming friend, but now I knew better. I went along with act. After all, our business association was profitable. To quit now would require I surrender the fruit of my labor and investments. Besides, my mind was not totally divested of the Aunt Bee act. That would come later. 

Lee's Chicken in Stanford, KY
via Google maps. This site
left an indelible stamp
in my mind. 
In hindsight, I should have cut my losses, driven off, and left him there.

I began using a dashcam on future sales trips for documentation. The camera, positioned where Ted could easily see it, recorded him slandering friends, co-workers, family members, customers, and others. 

Cue sixteen was listening as Ted consistently slandered others. This thought never occurred to me: If Ted were slandering others to me, he was slandering me to others. 

• Keeping up appearances

Ted managed to fool me for nearly 30 long years. That, surprisingly, is not unusual as psychopaths are adept at staying in character. 

Individuals unfortunate enough to be married to psychopaths often note that their partners maintained the act for many years; even decades. 

As noted earlier, infamous Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff pulled off the Aunt Bee act for decades, fooling even his own wife. 

Madoff's wife, Ruth, issued a statement, saying "I am breaking my silence now because my reluctance to speak has been interpreted as indifference or lack of sympathy for the victims of my husband Bernie's crime, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. I am embarrassed and ashamed. Like everyone else, I feel betrayed and confused. The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years." [source]

(How refreshing it would be if Ted's family displayed the same courage and character as Ruth Madoff and admit that, they too, were betrayed by Ted.)

Psychopaths seem to have a knack for staying in character. 

• Subtle sounds of demon-like voices

The following months were miserable. I was traveling with a person who pretended to be my best friend but was, in reality, my worst enemy. 

I would drive; he would sit in the passenger's seat and slander.  

I would listen for hours as his demonic personality would eviscerate his friends, family, and co-workers. Many of those episodes were recorded by the dash cam. 

Perhaps the most disturbing moments were listening to the demonic guttural sounds emitting from his innermost being as he slept in the car. Initially I presumed the horrific voice-like tones was snoring. Or was I hearing the presence of a demonic legion uttering their vile contempt for me as we traveled down the road? 

It was, indeed, horrifying; driving along a lonely Kentucky highway hearing nothing but the monotonous sound of the road and the subdued snarling voices emitting from deep within this horrible creature. 

A thought later occurred to me: I could take the audio recording from the dash cam and allow a specialist in demonology to listen. Without prompting, I would ask the minister to assess the guttural voice-like sounds: Are these the voices of demons? Or of a man snoring? 

The same demonic sounds were heard resonating through my office at night as Ted slept on the floor. The office security camera's motion detector was sometimes triggered by a small television Ted often allowed to play at night. 

Demons are restless spirits, they say. Spirits never slumber. They never sleep. 

The sounds were, indeed, eerie. Demons? Or simply snoring? 

I'm convinced the demonic sounds were entirely natural. Nonetheless, I can understand how humans can erroneously consign spiritual attributes to natural phenomena. 

Psychopathy — as all mental disorders — is natural.

• Projection

Ted's favorite mode of slander was to accuse others of being arrogant. Psychopaths, I later learned, project their faults onto others. Ted was extraordinarily arrogant and considered himself to be exceptionally brilliant, even though he was homeless, penniless, and seemed to have an intellectual threshold of a 12-year-old.

His childish behavior was reflected in his carelessness, irresponsibility, limited vocabulary, rudimentary writing skills, and a sense of humor typical of Junior High School boys. His adult body masked an emotional and intellectual child. 

Ted often complained about his brother-in-law who, he said, wasted away his days sitting alone in a Burger King reading The Wall Street Journal. Oddly, Ted could be frequently found bellied up to a table at McDonalds where he would doodle for hours. 

McDonalds restaurants were his haunt. That, by the way, shall serve as a tip to police officers: If you are looking to serve a warrant on Ted, but can't locate him: Try staking out the nearest McDonalds restaurant. He's almost certain to show up within 24 hours. 

• The woman at McDonalds

Cue seventeen came when a man and his friends began stalking Ted at night. 

Ted's Aunt Bee persona had befriended a young woman employed at a nearby McDonalds. Thinking Ted was a friend to be trusted, she shared personal information about her life. She told her friend, Ted, about her past love affairs and the children they produced. The woman was now happily married and was grateful that Ted provided a shoulder to cry on. 

Ted, however, divulged the young woman's past to other patrons at McDonalds. Ted's version of her life was less than flattering. His sordid tales made her appear to be a loose whore. 

Another employee overheard Ted's slandering and informed the young woman who, in turn, informed her husband. Night after night young men would prowl the streets near my office, hoping to catch Ted and have a, uh, "conversation." 

Ted became so frightened he called the police, in spite of the fact that he feared police; apparently due to his time in the penal system. Within weeks Ted packed his belongings and moved into the basement of another elderly couple across town. 

Ted was as dumb as I was gullible. Fortunately, my gullibility subsided. 

• Ministers' observations

Cue eighteen came from the warnings of several knowledgeable and experienced ministers. 

That begs the question: Why was I so easily duped by Ted's Aunt Bee persona while others immediately sensed a scoundrel?

Oddly, those who detected Ted's dark side were all Christians; most were ministers of the Gospel. 

One pastor told me that Ted's weirdness was apparent the first time he met him. A second pastor concluded much the same. His daughters characterized Ted as being "creepy' when they observed him walking around town with a cell phone 'glued' to his ear. 

A third pastor confided that he once considered inviting Ted to temporarily live in his home. An inner Still Small Voice changed his mind

A fourth pastor friend listened to Ted's Slander and promptly contacted me. He asked to meet for lunch. During our conversation he readily recognized that I had been scammed and was the victim of demonic Slander.

What did they detect that I missed? What did they see that the woman at McDonalds could not see? Why did his former boss not detect what was clearly seen by others? Why are some of us gullible while others are not? What insight do they possess that other don't possess?

Could it be the four ministers were spiritually attuned to demons residing in Ted? Or was their insight due to years of encountering a broad spectrum of personalities? Or both.

Indeed some seem to have the incredible insight to readily spot psychopaths. 

This was illustrated in the movie Gaslight in which the character B.G. Rough immediately recognized that character Paul Mallen was duping his victim. 

While I am grateful for these insightful men who readily recognized Ted as a two-faced con, it remains disappointing that most were so easily conned by his gaslighting. 

In reality, we merely love to listen to gossip and slander. And we love to believe it!

So, some Christians contend that when we open ourselves to slander from a demonic presence, we unwittingly invite demons to inhabit our minds. We become demon possessed. 

Were that true I would swear that Ted is the host vessel to a legion of demons who use him as a vehicle to gain access to the minds of unsuspecting victims. 

The sixth scam

Cue nineteen occurred when I phoned Ted. 

I asked Ted if he knew where my books were located. He grew eerily quiet, then said he didn't know. 

Years ago I self published a book that sold well. When sales waned the distributor asked me to claim the leftover books as he could no longer warehouse them. The owner of the box factory agreed to allow me to store the books at his location, an arrangement made by Ted. 

It never occurred to me that Ted planned to steal my books. 

I offered to give the leftover books to a pastor friend. He planned to give them, in turn, to prisoners. 

I met with the pastor at a Cracker Barrel restaurant near the box factory where the books were stored. Ted dined with us and I, of course, paid for Ted's meal. During dinner I agreed to deliver the books to the pastor in the near future. There would be a delay because my van was being repaired. 

Ted and I accompanied the pastor to the warehouse where we loaded a few boxes of books in the pastor's car trunk. The remainder would be delivered later. 

I was surprised to find the books stacked in boxes next to the warehouse entrance. Ted earlier said he didn't know where they were located. In fact he knew all along. They were placed near the door so he would have easy access to them. He was apparently stealing them piecemeal and selling them for salvage without my knowledge or consent. 

You will note from the Psychology Today article cited later that lying is a warning sign of gaslighting. 

• Discarded tissue paper

Ted grew increasingly irritable. He knew his scam was over. He could no longer use me or steal from me.

How a psychopath sees his victim:
Used, soiled, and discarded
toilet paper
One morning I stopped to pick up Ted from his haunt at McDonalds. After asking if he were ready to go, he said, "That's a loaded question," and turned his head.

When psychopaths can no longer abuse their victims, they discard them. 

Dr. Mary Ellen O'Toole, Senior Profiler, FBI (ret) compared this to discarding a used tissue paper: "Think about empathy in a psychopath this way. If you had a Kleenex tissue this morning and you disposed of that Kleenex in a trash can: Are you thinking about that Kleenex? Are you thinking about what life could have been like for that little Kleenex just had you not tossed it away? The analogy is, this is how a psychopath thinks about their victims."
There is no emotional attachment and no guilt or shame. 

My friend, Ted, saw me as used toilet paper; soiled, useless, and to be discarded. 

The psychopath loses no sleep and will often boast of his lack of empathy as if it were a strength.

Many psychologists compare psychopaths manipulating their victims to cats playing with mice. 

• Stolen books 

Two weeks later I returned to the box factory to pick up my books and deliver them to the pastor. The books were gone. 

The factory owner told me Ted had come about two weeks earlier and took the books. I was told that Ted returned later that same night we met with the pastor and took the books. 

I called the police and filed a report. The detective summoned Ted for an interview. According to the investigator, Ted admitted to taking the books and selling them for salvage, but insisted I had given them to him. Another friend later informed me that Ted was actually hiding the books in a tractor trailer at the box factory. 

Part 4: Evidence "etched in stone"

The evidence of Ted's psychopathic behavior is overwhelming. There are piles of court documents in addition to hours of video recordings. 

• A trove of evidence

The story, however, doesn't end there. 

Within months I received a packet in the mail containing over fifty sheets of paper. The papers were court documents; a veritable chronicle of Ted's criminal past. It was then that I learned why he had no bank accounts: A county judge prohibited him from having a checking account after his third prosecution for check deception. It had nothing to do with his religious convictions and everything to do with his criminal activities. 

The documents revealed that Ted had been sued multiple times by creditors, business owners, and landlords. The envelope was postmarked from the nearby town where the box factory is located. 

To verify the authenticity of the documents, I made a trip to the county courthouse. The clerk's office provides a public computer where anyone can search archived court records. In addition to the dozens of court actions involving my psychopathic friend are, perhaps, innumerable criminal acts that never prompted court actions.

• Video evidence 

Ted, you'll recall, lived in my office for three years. The office had been earlier equipped with a motion-activated video camera. It sat on a table in full view of anyone who walked in the office. The intent was to alert any prospective thief that he was being recorded. 

Affective empathy compelled me to allow my homeless friend
to live in my office at no charge for three years.
I also
bought his cell phone and paid his phone bill.
He unwittingly
stationed himself in front of the office security camera where
countless weeks of slanderous phone calls were
video recorded.

The camera was connected to my computer. The files were automatically stored on the hard drive.

Years after our faux friendship ended I was deleting files from the computer's hard drive so I could use it for additional storage. I came across a cache of hundreds of videos. I had forgotten about the office security camera. It was somewhat amusing to review scores of videos. Ted often sat smack-dab in front of the camera while talking on his cell phone I had purchased for him. Again, the conversations of Ted slandering his friends, family members, and co-workers were recorded. 

The videos remain on the hard drive. I often wonder how Ted's friends and family would react upon hearing his Slander. Would they finally see beyond his Aunt Bee act and recognize a psychopathic personality?

Ted's audacity was mind boggling. He sat in my office — which I generously allowed him to use for shelter  as he used a phone I purchased for him and data for which I was paying to Slander me to others. And he was recorded on the office security camera. 

• Recording Ted's Slander 

As noted earlier, I first acknowledged Ted's Francis personality when I overheard him plotting to effectively steal one of my accounts. 

I began using a dash cam on future sales calls. I would record where we went to prove commissions due. The purpose of the video camera apparently never occurred to Ted. 

The video camera was positioned on the dash where he could easily see it. 

Ted apparently grew accustomed to the camera during future sales trips. He would openly discuss his friends, family members, and co-workers. Ted spent much of his time slandering others. Many of his rants were captured on video.

Part 5: Gaslighting

During my studies of psychopathy I discovered that psychopaths typically engage in gaslighting. 

Gaslighting occurs when the psychopath portrays himself in a positive light and his victim as insane or, in my case, an "atheist".

The objective of gaslighting is to undermine perceptions others have of the actual victims or the actual victims have of themselves. That is, the manipulator's objective is to present his victim as one who has a problem.

The trait is named for the 1940s movie Gaslight in which a psychopath marries a woman for her money, then attempts to convince the woman and others she is crazy. The psychopath's intention is to have his newlywed wife committed to a mental institution. His plan is to keep her money. Fortunately, a hero senses the underlying Francis and exposes the Aunt Bee as a fraud. Click here to watch the 1940 version of the movie via YouTube. 

Ted displayed that same psychopathic behavior. He portrayed me as the offender and himself as the victim. He projected himself as a hero who was taking a godly stand against atheism. This provided a convenient excuse for scamming me out of thousands of dollars.  

Ted "gaslighted" me by falsely accusing me of being an arrogant atheist. Granted, my mind was in a state of flux; something I call a "faith crisis." Ted seized on my vulnerability. That's what psychopaths do. 

In Ted's version, he ended our business relationship because he could no longer be "unequally yoked" with a nonbeliever. He was taking a stand for Jesus. 

I am not an atheist in the conventional sense nor have I ever claimed to be. I do, however, refuse to accept any religious dogma simply because I am expected to do so. That is, I don't want to believe what is believed to be true. Rather, I want to know what is known to be true.

So what do I believe? I believe that which is real. If God is real, then so be it. I am a believer. I am not an unbeliever. I believe that which is real. 

In reality Ted simply discarded me like a used tissue because he could no longer scam me. My faith crisis was a vulnerability; the kind of vulnerability that psychopaths love to exploit for selfish reasons. 

I was being gaslighted. Ted undermined the perceptions of others by portraying himself as the hyper-religious icon of morality while I was portrayed as the evil atheist from whom he could no longer be "unequally yoked." 

In spite of Ted's religious persona, he seldom attended church. 

"They profess that they know God," the Bible says, "but in works they deny him." 

In Ted's case the "works" are documented by a trove of court records and video recordings. You saw a few of those above and will see more below. 

Incredibly, many still believe him. How can I fault them? I trusted him for decades! 

• The gaslight trail

During the three years Ted lived in my office, I noticed some people began to treat me with utter contempt. Their countenance scowled as they stared at me as if I had committed some grievous offense. It was a strange phenomenon I had never previously experienced. The glares seemed demonic.

Some of these haters were people I had known for years. Others were people I hardly knew at all; such as the clerk in a retail store. 

Eventually it occurred to me they all had one thing in common: They all knew Ted. 

Had the legion of spirits that possessed Ted sent demonic emissaries to possess others? Could it be that, by listening to Ted's demonic Slander, the listeners opened themselves to demonic possession? Would that account for their demonic glares? 

The experience demonstrated the viral effect of Ted's Slander. 

David Masters, author of The Psychopath Victim's Tool Kit, explains that psychopaths slander their victims. The psychopath will attempt to convince the victim's friends that the victim has a "problem". He said:
[C]hance are, if the psychopath has done his or her homework, they've already gotten to them in advance.

If your friends have not already been compromised by your psychopath, there's a good chance they will be.

And be forewarned: Very few people can compete with the ability to manipulate the minds of the unsuspecting like the psychopath. [source]

I was shocked to discover how effectively Ted convince others that I was the bad guy. 

Here's an example: While speaking with a friend and financial adviser, I urged him not to disclose my personal finances with Ted. I was a bit surprised when he responded, "Yeah. I know."

He explained that Ted had encountered his wife at Walmart. Even though I never met his wife, Ted had convinced her that I was the epitome of evil. 

The irony is that Ted had also eviscerated his wife during one of our sales trips. The woman owned an interior design business. Ted had convinced me her work was shabby; that she lacked talent. As Ted had convinced me she was incompetent, he convinced her that I was the personification of evil. To phrase that in the vernacular: As Ted trashed talked about her to me, he trashed talked about me to her.  

Ted likely convinced many others that the woman lacked talent and, as such, may have cost her thousands of dollars in sales through his slanderous loose tongue. He displayed no remorse or empathy for damages he may have done to her business. And she was wholly unaware of his devious Slander.  

Likewise, I don't know how many people hate me solely based upon Ted's Slander of me. My gaslight trail may include dozens or even hundreds of individuals. The destruction caused by gaslighting is, perhaps, the most devastating aspect of trusting a psychopath. It was certainly the most painful in my experience.

• Immune from gaslighting

Not everyone was duped by Ted's gaslighting. 

As mentioned earlier, a number of ministers readily recognized Ted's Francis personality. Others immune from his gaslighting were those who, themselves, had been his victims. A retired businessman, for example, was nonplussed at Ted's persistent gaslighting and often expressed his sympathy for my plight. The businessman had, himself, been scammed by Ted. He couldn't and wouldn't be fooled. 

While few of us possess the natural insight of the afore mentioned ministers, we can learn from those who study psychopathy. We can learn the tell-tale signs of a person possessed with the demonic spirit called Psychopath. 

An article in Psychology Today presented 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting. [source]

These are:

1. They tell blatant lies.

The deception capacity of my psychopath is legendary. His lies were often lies of omission. He simply failed to mention that he had a long history of litigation including incarceration. 

2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.

Proof of Ted's narcissistic nefarious scams and deceptions are documented in court records. Still he plays the role of Aunt Bee. 

3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.

During his gaslighting phase Ted delighted in using my dear friends as ammunition against me by convincing them that I was, somehow, the epitome of evil; the sacrosanct atheist whom he had purged from his milieu. Sadly, many were convinced and followed suit. 

As noted earlier I am not an atheist in the conventional sense; nor have I ever claimed to be an atheist. I do, however, challenge unsubstantiated belief systems that encompass a wide range of diverse and competing religious disciplines as well as the hair-brained conspiracy theories embraced by Ted. 

An unbeliever, it seems, is anyone who disagrees with Ted about anythings. Congratulations. You, too, qualify as an unbeliever and may be susceptible as such in Ted's libelous Slander. 

Ted conveniently omitted the biblical admonition, "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly" and Paul's advice to "avoid those who cause division". (See Proverbs 26:22 and Romans 16:17.)

4. They wear you down over time.

The Psychology Today article seems to be referring directly to Ted as it describes the wearing down process. 

"This is one of the insidious things about gaslighting—it is done gradually, over time. A lie here, a lie there, a snide comment every so often...and then it starts ramping up. Even the brightest, most self-aware people can be sucked into gaslighting—it is that effective. It's the 'frog in the frying pan' analogy: The heat is turned up slowly, so the frog never realizes what's happening to it."

5. Their actions do not match their words.

"They profess that they know God," the Apostle Paul wrote, "but in works they deny him."

Ted not only feigned religion; he feigned friendship. He also immersed himself in scams, such as convincing me to "buy" his son's junk Cadillac under the pretense of making a loan. 

"...being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate," Paul concluded. 

6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.

Ted played the role of a close friend. That was the psychological tether that led to my confusion. I honestly believed I was being considerate; the beloved friend. In reality I was being duped by a psychopath. 

He confused others by feigning religiosity and close friendship. 
7. They know confusion weakens people.

Again, Psychology Today describes Ted: "Gaslighters know that people like having a sense of stability and normalcy." 

"And humans' natural tendency is to look to the person or entity that will help you feel more stable—and that happens to be the gaslighter."

8. They project.

Ted projected his faults on others. Most commonly he constantly accused others of being arrogant. Ted's arrogant narcissism is unsurpassed in my experience. Like Satan, pride is his signature flaw. He projected that flaw onto others. 

9. They try to align people against you.

This is the most painful part of my experience with Ted. He was incredibly gifted at aligning others — including dear and (formerly) trusted friends — against me.

Speaking of gaslighters, Psychology Today notes, "Isolation gives them more control."

Ted controlled the narrative by aligning others against me. I remain alone and isolated from the very friends I formerly trusted for moral, emotional, and spiritual support. 

10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.

Ted aligns others against me, not by telling them I am crazy, but convincing them I am an atheist. And that, in the minds of most Christians, is tantamount to insanity. As noted previously, I am not an atheist.  

11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

Ted dwells in an environment of conspiracies. Nothing is as it seems. Ted then projects himself as the insightful one who can be trusted. Incredibly many of us did (and some still do) trust him. 

Tragically, most were convinced by Ted's gaslighting. Here's one example:  

• Stealing Stan

Stan (not his real name) and his wife were good friends. We attended church together, were both in the same Sunday School class, shared many friends, would frequently dine together at restaurants after church, and even vacationed together. As teens, Stan's daughter and my son were also good friends. 

Ted abruptly made a bizarre statement: He announced that he had taken my friend Stan. It was one of those comments that placed an indelible crease on my gray matter, so to speak; a moment locked forever in the recesses of my mind. 

The mental impression was made because his words were so incredulous and unusual; totally off the wall and out of context with our conversation. Ted spoke with a sense of satisfaction. It was reminiscent of golfer who just sunk a hole in one or card player who laid down a winning hand. He was gloating. 

It was the oddity of the experience that made it stick in my mind. Ted and I had many conversations over the years and exchanged countless thousands of words. These words, however, made a lasting impression. They were so bizarre. 

However, I thought nothing about it when Stan didn't return my e-mail messages. He was, after all, a busy professional. And unanswered e-mails are not uncommon. 

I seldom saw Stan after that day. I drifted away from church and lost contact with Stan and other congregants. Nonetheless, many friends from the church were kind enough pay visits when I was hospitalized for heart surgery and again, two years later, for brain surgery. Stan was not among them. I paid it no mind. 

I thought it peculiar when I saw Stan and his wife at a pizza restaurant. Their reception was cold. It didn't occur to me that Stan may have "caught" Ted's demon by opening his mind to Slander.

A few years passed after Ted's odd announcement. I saw Stan at a funeral, passed in front of him, and courteously waved. He stared straight ahead as if I were invisible. Maybe he didn't see me, I thought. After the service I approached Stan. He allowed me to shake his hand but said nothing and, again, stared away as if I were invisible. He clearly wanted nothing to do with me.

It was only then that the dots seemed to connect. Had Ted's demon, Slander, convinced Stan I was some devious malefactor? It's impossible to know for sure. 

It appears, however, that Ted had in fact "stolen" my friendship with Stan and was gloating in his accomplishment. 

It was after this last experience with Stan that I coined Kennism #152Sometimes I like to be around church people to remind me why I don't like to be around church people.

That is the essence of gaslighting. The psychopath defers his malevolence to his victim. In the minds of others the victim is the "bad guy;" not the psychopath. As noted earlier, its akin to a bully punching a kid on the playground, then accusing the victim. Vicariously the psychopath's victim becomes the bully in the minds of others. And they treat the victim as if he or she were the bully. It's a painful and frustrating experience. First comes the emotional trauma caused by the psychopath's scheming. Second comes amplified trauma; a tidal wave of hatred and rejection from those who have fallen for the psychopath's gaslighting.

I often wonder what Ted's demon told Stan that was so convincing. Did he accuse me of some devious crime? Did he falsely accuse me of slandering Stan behind his back? Did he accuse me of slandering Stan's loved ones? I'll probably never know. 

I have no idea how many other "Stans" are out there. Suffice it to say: If you know me and know Ted, you've almost certainly listened to his demon, Slander, eviscerate me. That is, Ted likely involved you in his gaslighting campaign. Did Slander convince you? When I see you, do I see you? Or do I see that hateful scowl of Slander residing inside you?

• In his own words: Would you be fooled? 

What exact words did Ted say to Stan and others that were so convincing? 

Incredibly, we have Ted's deception in his own written words. (This in addition to video recordings). 

Below is a screen shot taken from Ted's blog. The image is posted without annotation or changes (other than the name redacted). Read his slander verbatim. Look for strategies of deception used by psychopaths (or demoniacs, if you prefer). 

Had you heard Ted say these words, would you have been deceived? Or would you have seen through the deception? What did Ted include? What did he omit? Why did he say what he said? What's thoughts do psychopaths attempt to evoke when they speak (or write)? 

The psychopath's strategy is quite simple: Destroy the testimony of your victim by destroying his credibility. In the movie Gaslight, the villain destroyed the testimony of his victim by claiming she was crazy. In real life the psychopath destroyed my testimony by convincing gullible people I was an atheist.

Both the fictional theatrical psychopath and my real-life psychopath arrogantly presented themselves in a positive light and their victims in the darkest light possible. 

An example of gaslighting: The psychopath attempts to discredit his victim as seen
the above blog post that was obviously published to gaslight me. Rather than portray me as 'crazy,' he portrayed me as an atheist. Note the psychopath projected himself to be a spiritual giant. He failed to mention the following court actions. These court actions prove that he is anything but a spiritual giant. (There may have been many others yet to be uncovered, not to mention countless scams that did not result in court actions.)
3-4-1993 1-year jail term for check deception
3-21-1986 plaintiff - State of Indiana - check deception
9-9-1988 plaintiff - State of Indiana - check deception
11-18-1988 plaintiff - State of Indiana - check deception
9-18-1985 garnishment Columbus trophies $301.00 plus cc
10-31-1985 sued by One Finance
2-3-1986 Claimant: Milo E Smith eviction?
8-29-1986 plaintiff - State of Indiana - DUI
5-12-1987 sued by Credit Thrift of America Inc
6-25-1987 sued by Dennis M Stark
7-6-1987 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
7-20-1987 garnishment Allied Collection Services Inc
10-15-1987 sued by National Car Rental $941.84
10-22-1987 eviction Beech Acres Mobile Home Park
1-11-1988 garnishment Betty E Cain
11-22-1988 eviction Creative Development Corp.
1-25-1989 ITT Financial Services $4100.14
1-19-1990 garnishment J Michael Kummerer
3-30-1990 sued by Appraisers Inc
11-21-1990 sued by Blue River Fed Savings (garnishment)
3-8-1991 sued by Collection Associates Inc
8-16-1991 sued by Lohmeyer Plumbing Co. Inc
9-30-1991 sued by ITT Financial Services
2-24-1995 sued by Jon Broady
6-25-1992 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
9-24-1992 sued by Second Time Around
8-4-1993 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
3-8-1994 sued by David's Radiator for $300.00
4-25-1994 eviction Robert L Risk
7-18-1994 sued by Tire 1 Inc
8-29-1994 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
11-15-1994 sued by Eynon, Harmon, $ Dartt PC
2-1-1995 sued by Intelesis Inc
10-25-1995 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
1-24-1996 sued by Ramada Inn of Columbus
7-30-1996 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
10-5-1997 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
12-7-1998 sued by Bartholomew Cons School Corp
12-21-1999 sued by Sam Smith
2-19-1999 Emergency Protective Order filed by Angel Kinsey
4-26-1999 sued by Paige's Music $1,751.06
3-31-2000 eviction Columbus Container
2-2-2004 plaintiff: Kemper Insurance Company
2-13-2006 plaintiff: State Farm Mutual Insurance

Did you spot the difficulties?

First, Ted lied by contradicting himself. 

He claimed he recently learned his old friend became an atheist. Later, he says he let it drag on for nine months. While most would consider "recently" to be a relative term, few would consider nine months to be recent. Psychopaths — and all liars — commonly entrap themselves in their own deceptions. Which was it? Recently? Or nine months?

Nine months prior to Ted breaking our verbal contract I had discovered he was violating our agreement by cutting me out of commissions. My faith crisis actually began many years earlier during which time I sought and received council from several godly men and loyal friends. 

Ted's nine months of "misery" didn't begin when he discovered I was an "atheist." Rather, his nine months of "misery" began when I discovered he was co-opting my commissions. 

Second, Ted lied by commission. 

At no point, never, ever, have I self-identified as an atheist. I hate the term.

Ted claimed we were partners. We were not partners. He claimed we had a business. We did not. We worked together on a few sales calls. Commissions were paid separately, not to a business or partnership. 

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines partners as "joint principals in a business." There was no business. There was no business name. There was no business address. There was no business bank account. There was no business phone number. There was no business website. There was no business e-mail. There was no partnership. 

So why the lie about being yoked? 

This misrepresentation was central to Ted's gaslighting scheme. It allowed him to evoke II Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers." 

Is an agreement a "yoke"? If so, virtually all Christians are in violation of II Corinthians 6:14 each time they engage in any agreement with any unbelievers, including atheists, Mormons, Hindus, Budhists, etc.  

As noted earlier, one could apply Ted's misunderstanding of "yoked" to argue that we continue to be "yoked." We are bound by his debt to me for commissions he stole and an estimated $50,000 in books he absconded. Until Ted returns the books and makes full restitution for stolen commissions, we will continue to be "yoked."

If Ted genuinely wishes to be "unyoked" with me, he can make full restitution.

Third, Ted lied by omission. 

Ted failed to mention that he was a convict; convicted three times and sentenced to one year in jail for check deception! Ted never mentioned that he stole commissions. He said nothing of the numerous times he had been sued. He said nothing of absconding books valued at thousands of dollars. There was no mention of unpaid loans or unpaid phone bills. He didn't mention the number of times he had been evicted for failure to pay rent. 

Ted failed to mention that I gave him a place to live for three long years. He said nothing of the countless meals I purchased for him. He omitted mentioning I had purchased a cell phone for him and paid for the data he used and over used. He declined to mention the many times I provided transportation. He also failed to mention that his former employer had providing him housing then later sued him; apparently to evict him. 

Fourth, Ted attempted to discredit my testimony of his malfeasance by destroying my credibility.

That is the apparent purpose of his blog post. That is the essence of gaslighting. What he wrote is likely what he said to others in an effort to deceive them. Tragically, he frequently succeeded.  

Fifth, he demonstrated abject narcissism.

Note the title of Ted's post: How God blessed my stand against atheism.

It is not, "How God blesses standing against atheism." Nor is it, "How God will bless your stand against atheism."

The emphasis is on Ted's grandiose projection of himself as the heroic spiritual dynamo who bravely resisted evil. 

Psychopathy envelopes narcissism. And that, my friends, is abject narcissism. 

Sixth, he feigned goodness to cover badness.

Ted projected an image of moral superiority. He openly boasted of God's favor for taking a stand against atheism. "Stay tuned and see how God blesses," he wrote. We have stayed tuned and what we have seen is unabated psychopathic behavior. Last I heard Ted soon lost all of our accounts. Psychopaths seldom if ever admit they are wrong.

Note that Ted boasted of his "convictions." As Kleason presented himself as a war hero, Ted presented himself as a marvelous Christian with deep imbibing convictions. 

Where were his convictions when he was kiting multiple checks? Where were his convictions when he was scamming me out of $2,000? Where were his convictions when he ran up his phone bill? Where were his convictions when he was slandering me to others? Where were his convictions when he stiffed my friend for about $400? Where were his convictions when he bilked the car rental business out of about $900? Where were his convictions when he failed to pay a tire store? Where were his convictions when he forced multiple landlords to evict him? 

Ted's "convictions" seem selective.

To my knowledge Ted has never made restitution or even apologized for any of his scams. 

Obviously, it was all pretense; not "convictions".

Seventh, he misdirected the readers of his blog post. 

Ted admitted our accounts were dying. This is because I refused to seek new accounts knowing he would likely attempt to steal them. It could also be that clients were more perceptive than I; that they sensed Ted's "demonic" spirit. 

Why do some readily detect the deception of psychopaths while many others (like me) are so easily duped by them? 

Ironically, Ted asked me to set up the blog for him. It is called "Truth and Treasurers." In keeping with the Dunning-Kruger effect, Ted lacked the intelligence to create a simple blog. What's more, I registered the domain name truthandtreasures. com and pointed it to the blog for him. And I paid the annual fee for the domain name! (It has since lapsed and, last I checked, is owned by another.)

It appears Ted used the blog and web site I created for him to Slander me. In similar fashion he used the cell phone I bought him as well as the data to Slander me and others. 

Ted left a peculiar comment on his blog. He boasted of having no guilt. "I will die in peace," he wrote. 

It appears his inability to feel compassion for those he has scammed is misunderstood to be evidence of innocence. It's as if he is saying, "I'm innocent because I feel no remorse. I will die in peace."

It is, indeed, evidence; but not of innocence. It is evidence of a psychopath. In spite of volumes of court documents implicating him in a broad swath of illegal activities, he sleeps soundly with no conscience; no empathy. 

A lack of remorse or guilt is a component of psychopathy. When my friend Ted boasted of having no remorse or guilt and was, effectively, boasting of being a psychopath. 

Again, Ted's blog post is a quintessential example of gaslighting; the psychopath demonizing his victim for the express purpose of discrediting his testimony and, at the same time, elevating himself. 

• Gaslighting amplifies the victims' pain 

Psychopaths gain pleasure in the pain of their victims. Gaslighting allows psychopaths to amplify this equilibrium of pleasure from pain: The more pain caused by Ted's viral Slander, the more pleasure he received. 

As Slander goes viral, even close friends may hold victims in contempt. Consequently, gaslighting is often the most painful aspect of being victimized by psychopaths. That pain is caused by the abject rejection of others. Ted, like most psychopaths, understands this and delights in turning friends against his victims. 

That was my experience and continues to be my experience. I simply no longer trust people; particularly those who claim religious values. 

How so?

The fact that the very people who believe the God narrative also believe in Ted's gaslighting narrative leads me to conclude that their faith in the God is no more credible than their faith in Ted's Slander.

If church people can't discern gaslighting, how can they be trusted to discern anything? 

Why do they believe Ted's gaslighting? Because they are believers. They even call themselves "believers." They believe stuff. That's what believers do. It's human nature to believe. They believe the gossip of Ted as readily as they believe the Gospel of John.

I appreciate my Christian friends. I do not trust them. I am fully aware that a mere fifteen minutes of listening to Ted's gaslighting gossip will turn my beloved Christian friends into hate-filled demonic enemies. I've experienced the transformation from beloved Christian friend to hateful devil too many times to be fooled again.  

Each time I encounter a friendly Christian, I say to myself, "Ah! A Christian who has not yet been exposed to Ted's gossip and Slander."

Likewise, every time I encounter a Christian former friend who believed Ted's gaslighting, I am reassured that their faith in God is equally baseless. Their hatred for me is an expression of their gullibility and lack of discernment. It is at once both painful and reassuring. 

Ted, therefore, provides a valuable service: He culls Christians allowing me to determine who are true friends and who are not. Most are not. I no longer accept the friendship of a Christian until he or she has first been exposed to Ted's gaslighting. It seems to be the ideal litmus test. 

I find, then, three types of Christian friends: First are those friendly Christians who have not yet been exposed to Ted's gaslighting. Second are those hateful Christians who have been exposed to Ted's gaslighting. Third are the very few who discerned Ted's gaslighting was the ramblings of a psychopath or demoniac and remain faithful and beloved friends. 

Coupled with many long conversations with Christian friends, pastors, apologists, etc., I find myself unwillingly rejecting anything supernatural. There is nothing supernatural. There never has been anything supernatural. There never will be anything supernatural. Ted's religion goes in the same trash bin as Ted's asinine litany of conspiracy theories and gaslighting gossip. 

Ted gets no credit for confirming my belief that there is nothing supernatural. The host of religious people who believed Ted's narratives provide overwhelming evidence that their faith is a mere pathological and neurological phenomenon. They believe in God for the same reason they believe Ted: They're gullible. Likewise, I believed in God for the same reason I believed Ted: I was gullible.

One final point regarding gaslighting: If you are being gaslighted by a psychopath, Ariel Leve offers four strategies for coping. They are:

1. Remain defiant

2. Recognize there will never be accountability

3. Let go of the wish for it to be different

4. Develop healthy detachment

Part 6: Duper's delight

Duper's delight usually occurs after a psychopath has ended his hoax. I've heard several psychologists use the term. Ofttimes duper's delight is manifested as nothing more than a brazen smirk. 

Ted expressed duper's delight by parading in front of his victims. When I observed this oddity I was unaware that it was a component of a psychopath's behavior. 

For example: Ted and I were leaving the box factory when his former employer drove by. It was very important to Ted that his former boss see him. So he paced back and forth in the parking lot. It was truly bizarre. 

You'll recall the young McDonald's employee Ted had slandered. Ted seemed to enjoy parading in front of her during subsequent visits to the restaurant. It was if to say, "I slandered you and there's nothing you can do about it."

I once attended a funeral of a mutual friend. Ted also attended the funeral. At the grave site Ted went to extremes to walk back and forth in front of me. It was his method of expressing duper's delight. 

Psychopaths, you'll recall, gain pleasure from causing pain. Duper's delight — whether a smirk, parading, or some other form of signaling — is intended to cause pain to the victim. It is another opportunity for the psychopath to experience pleasure.

• Nice guys finish duped 

James Fallon is a noted psychologist who
lectures extensively on psychopathy
Over the years I had been Ted's best friend. I provided him a place to live for three years; possibly the longest he's ever stayed at one location. I paid for his cell phone service, provided him meals, and volunteered to drive him to view real estate that he could never manage to buy. What's more, I helped him acquire several sales accounts that he otherwise would not have obtained. To my knowledge I did nothing that would hurt or offend him. Nonetheless, he continued to scam me for years. 

That experience prompted me to study the psychology behind such weird behavior. It was then I learned that Ted was not demonic as some suggest, but was almost certainly a quintessential psychopath. He has no empathy because his brain is likely malformed; his amygdalae don't function properly and his mirror neurons may be dysfunctional. 

I now believe I understand Ted's behavior. I understand why some of us are so easily duped while others are not. We are duped because we are gullible and trusting. We are void of cognitive empathy.

• Ted's long trail of victims

Some may be tempted to excuse Ted's failure to meet financial obligations. Did he encounter one of those "rough spots" so many of us face in life? 

Dated court documents span about 15 years. That's a very long rough spot. My unfortunate experiences with Ted spanned a period of about thirty years. The most serious offenses concurred more than a decade after my psychopath dropped off the proverbial radar. That is, his rough spot seems to consist of a long series of scams that span his entire adult life. art 7: Duping others

Because the pleasure center of the psychopath is stimulated by hurting others, it is almost certain that your psychopath has left a trail of victims. The psychopath's trail may have begun in his childhood. 

Ted once shared a childhood experience. He was visiting a classroom in which a relative was the teacher. The teacher left the room momentarily, placing Ted in charge. In the teacher's absence, Ted said he paraded up and down the aisles between the pupils' desks shouting at the children. He laughed as he told the story, noting that he had brought many of the little children to tears. It appears Ted's lack of affective empathy has always been present. And it seems his peculiar 'duper's delight' pattern of parading near his victims has also be ever present. 

Part of Ted's trail is documented by court records. As previously noted there are almost certainly scores — perhaps hundreds — of victims who didn't bother to sue him; I being one of them.

An elderly friend retired from his wholesale produce business. He confided that Ted had once made a purchase but never paid the bill. The total amount owed, he said, was over $400. The businessman wrote it off as a bad debt and never filed a lawsuit. 

How many other scams are there that were never taken to court?

Court records document a trail of deception beginning in the mid-1980s and continued for about 15 years. The trail began to end after a court sentenced Ted to a one-year jail term for check deception and denied him the right to have a checking account. 

Ted quit his job, declined (or was unable) to renew his driver's license, and refused to use his social security number. The scams and deceptions, however, continued. Victims (like me) were unable to find relief through the judicial system. Ted had effectively made himself judgement proof.

Ted is a master at explaining "big misunderstandings." Perhaps he has a logical explanation for a trail of multiple court actions spanning a period of about 15 years. I'd like to hear that explanation. Also, Ted may have some explanation for others — like myself — who claim to have experienced his schemes and scams. I'd like to hear that explanation as well.

Below are a few documented examples of, perhaps, hundreds of scams attributed to Ted. 


A court action dated September 18, 1985 documents a wage garnishment. Apparently Ted had made purchases from Columbus Trophy Company and left a $301 bill unpaid. Ted was gainfully employed at the time allowing the debtor to have his wages garnished. This is one of several wage garnishments documented by court records. 

The document reads: 

Apparently Ted didn't bother showing up in court resulting in a default judgement. 

As noted above, Ted later quit his job making wage garnishments virtually impossible. Ted remained hushed about his long trail of civil and criminal court actions. Instead, he shrouded his odd behavior in a cloak of spiritual aloofness: He was avoiding the world system of the coming Anti-Christ.

• BEECH ACRES (1987)

A court action was filed in 1987 by Beech Acres Mobile Home Park in Columbus, Indiana. Apparently my psychopath had been evicted. The court document read in part: 



A court action was filed that same year by National Car Rental. Apparently Ted had rented a vehicle then skipped out without paying. The court action was dated October 15, 1987. Cash was commonly used for car rentals in the 1980s. 

The court document reads in part:


In 1991 a court action indicates that Ted's wages were garnished to satisfy a debt owed to Lohemeyer Plumbing in Columbus, Indiana. 

The document reveals a settlement of $328.82, court costs, and post judgement interests. The default judgement suggests that Ted not only failed to pay his debt but failed to show up in court. 

This was one of many wage garnishment records linked to Ted on record at the courthouse in Bartholomew County, Indiana. 

• TIRE ONE (1994)

It appears that my dear friend purchased tires for his vehicle and managed to skip out without paying. 

The court action was dated 1994. Note that nearly ten years had past sense the first court action posted above. 

A pattern seems to emerge: It appears that Ted has an incredible aptitude for obtaining service prior to paying. In this case it appears Tire One placed enough confidence in Ted's Aunt Bee personality that they allowed him to drive away with new tires without paying; they assumed Aunt Bee would return to settle the debt in the near future. Likewise, it appears National Car Rental allowed Ted's Aunt Bee to drive off prior to making full payment. 

If true, I know the scam. I was confident that Ted would repay the $100 I loaned him to wire to his son. 

The default judgement cites a settlement of $188.71 owed the claimant, Tire One, by the defendant.

• RAMADA INN (1996)

A court action dated January 24, 1996 demonstrates how effective Ted was in ducking and duping. He rented a conference room at the local Ramada Inn but apparently skipped out without paying. The occasion was a presentation for a multi-level program in which Ted was involved. 

That prompted a court action called "civil plenary" (or lawsuit). The plaintiff was apparently seeking $100 owed by Ted. Ted, however, was nowhere to be found. His duck-and-dupe strategy was working. 

So how was Ted able to convince Ramada Inn to rent him a conference room if Ted had no permanent address?

He apparently used a friend's address without that friend's knowledge or consent. 

How do I draw this conclusion? You can imagine my shock as I was reviewing this court document and discovered my business address — 422 1/2 Fifth Street — was cited as Ted's address! 

This, by the way, was years before my beloved Aunt Bee moved into my office. 


Public court records indicate that a protective order was filed against Ted in 1999. Ted once complained that a physician ordered him to stop bothering his daughter. Apparently Ted had a love interest that was not reciprocated. The individual named in the complaint may be that daughter. 


I don't know how much aggression an offender must demonstrate before a judge approves a protective order. My understanding is that such actions are not issued unless there is substantial evidence to merit the order. 

The above citations prompt a number of observations. 

First, all of the court actions sided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. That is, Ted was guilty in every single instance. Ted's proclivity for explaining "really big misunderstandings" is usually very convincing. However, it was rendered moot under the scrutiny of an impartial judiciary. 

Second, the sheer number and frequency of court actions affirm serial criminal behavior. Each dupe I experienced — scammed out of the investment for end tables, refused loan repayment, duped into buying his son's junk Cadillac, stolen sales accounts, refused to reimburse cell phone overages, and a host of other slights   was a scam in a long series of scams over many years involving countless victims. It's analogous to a conveyor belt moving boxes down the line. The scams I experienced were just a few of the many "boxes" in Ted's conveyor belt of dupes of many individuals and businesses. 

Third, court convictions had no discernible affect on Ted's behavior. This is akin to revocation of conditional release. 

Fourth, it seems incredible that Ted managed to dupe so many for so long while no one doxed him. That is, no one bothered to do a background check. Then, again, who would suspect Aunt Bee would have a criminal record? 

Fifth, it is fortunate that at least one person investigated Ted's criminal past and exposed the Aunt Bee character to be an act. 

Part 8: Affecting faith

One would think that being duped for years by a trusted "Christian" friend would challenge my faith in God. My exposure to Ted's psychopathy did little more than pique my interest in the psychopathic phenomenon. 

Ted's Slander didn't challenge my faith in religion. Rather, it affirmed my skepticism. The significant number of Christians who believed his Slander did challenge my faith. 

That is, the same church folk — including myself — who believed God raises people from the dead also believed Ted's Slander. If we were mistaken on the latter, how do we know we're not mistaken on the former? 


Our gullibility led us to believe in Ted as an affable and trusted friend when, in reatlity, court documents portray a serial scoundral. Is it any wonder, then, that we believed a super spook spoke the universe into existence ... in six days!


This gullible, childlike faith is actually encouraged in the Bible.


"He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: 'Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.'" (See Matthew 18:2-3)


Seriously? We must regress to the gullibility of a little child to enter heaven? There is a spiritual preference for those void of cognitive empathy?

Ted's ability to dupe so many others, therefore, prompts the question: Why do we believe what we believe? 

Ted postured himself as my most trusted friend. Why did I continue to believe him? 

What's more, I listened for countless hours as my trusted friend scandalized others through seemingly endless rounds of Slander. Why did I believe him? 

Why did others believe him when he slanders me? 

The answer to the above questions is simple: We are genetically programmed to believe absurdities.

• Genetic predisposition to believe nonsense.

The fact that so many church people readily believe Ted's Slander is evidence that our belief system is seriously flawed. That's not an indictment against church people but, rather, an observable aspect of human nature.

There are 7.6-billion people alive today of whom no two agree totally on everything all the time. At the most only one person can always be totally correct about everything. The conclusion: Everyone is wrong about something at some point in time. We are all delusional to varying degrees. We all believe absurdities; and we all think we are correct!  

To illustrate this point, imagine three individuals — a Baptist, a Mormon, and a Jehovah's Witness — are confined to a room and denied release until they come to agree. The three emerge from the room within minutes. All agreed that he was correct and the other two were loons. 

We possess an innate predisposition to believe a broad spectrum of absurdities ranging from conspiracy theories to religious fairy tales to slander.

The same component of our brains that enables us to believe fanciful slanderous lies also allow us to believe in fanciful religious dogmas. 

Here are some examples. 

Over 1-billion humans subscribe to the faith of Hinduism. That's 1-billion individuals who believe they're related to cows. 

Belief in witchcraft led to an unpleasant outcome for 20 people during the Salem witch trials. Witches are still murdered in sub-Saharan Africa. 

A friend once informed me that there are space aliens called reptilians who live inside the moon. There are other races of aliens called whites and grays; the grays being sinister beyond comprehension. When I asked my friend if he was a Scientologist, he became irate and demanded to know, "What kind of nut do you think I am?!"

On the other hand, one of the most honest people I know is an avowed and vociferous atheist who demonstrates the "fruit of the spirit" — love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control — without the benefit of religiosity. 


We aspies seem to be more vulnerable to believe absurdities than neurotypical individuals. 

The benefit of people believing Slander is described more fully in my Commandment 10 noted below.

Again, Ted's psychopathy did not challenge my faith. The significant number of neurotypical Christians who believe his nonsense is a slam-dunk indictment against the folly of their faith.

Part 9: What to do: 10 commandments

Here are my personal ten commandments for protecting oneself against the angst caused by psychopaths. 

1. Thou shalt seek qualified counseling. 

If you've been victimized by a psychopath, consider talking to a professional counselor who is well versed in psychopathy. Consider joining a support group for victims of psychopaths. 

2. Thou shalt seek qualified legal advice. 

In some cases you may also need to talk to an attorney. Psychopaths frequently view themselves as being above the law. This may be attributed to their narcissistic nature. It was made evident in Ted's multiple court actions and his decision to go off the grid to avert legal contests. 

In spite of their exaggerated self perceptions, psychopaths are not above the law. In fact, about 23 percent of America's prison population are considered psychopathic. The general population is about one percent psychopathic.

3. Thou shalt record thyself

If you are a victim of a psychopath, be prepared to record any forthcoming encounter. Most cell phones are sufficient. Laws regarding recording others vary from state to state. You will want to be familiar with you state's laws.

While Ted circulates unfounded slanderous accusations, hours of video recordings and piles of court records combine to provide a mountain of empirical evidence that punctures gaping holes in his Aunt Bee persona. They also serve to disprove his Slander.

4. Thou shalt dox thine offender 

The term dox is short for documentation

Because psychopathy is pathological, psychopaths literally cannot change their behavior. As cited in the Psychology Today article above, "adult psychopathy is largely impervious to treatment." 

Consequently, the criminal psychopath likely has a history of court actions, both civil and criminal. Documentation of these court actions are public record and can usually be obtained through the office of the county clerk where the psychopath resides or has resided. 

Here's a rule of thumb: Usually, the older the psychopath, the more court actions and subsequent documentation is available. 

After years of being hauled into court for a string of civil and criminal actions, Ted made himself judgement proof by quitting his job, having no driver's license, refusing to use his social security number, etc. In effect, he made himself virtually untraceable. 

You may also want to ask your friends to record encounters with your psychopath; particular if he is spreading Slander. Most of your friends carry devices such as cellphones, tablets, laptops, etc. Recording can easily be activated. 

My psychopath is unaware how many of my friends are prepared to record his libelous Slander. 

5. Thou shalt not seek revenge. 

There's no need to seek revenge on a psychopath. 

Here are six reasons why:

First reason not to seek revenge: There are likely others seeking revenge. 

Psychopaths tend to have a history of abusing others. Consequently, they typically have a long list of enemies who are actively seeking revenge.  So, why bother? 

Ted seemed to be in a perennial state of fright and flight; always looking over his shoulder while hiding from his revenge-seeking victims. I don't need to seek revenge. There are plenty of others who are doing it already.

I honestly worry for Ted's safety and often wonder how he manages to escape incarceration, being physically assaulted, or even murdered by angry victims.

Second reason not to seek revenge: Revenge may be affirming to your psychopath. 


Your acts of revenge are affirmations that the psychopath was successful in hurting you; otherwise, why would you seek revenge? Your efforts to "get back" at your psychopath are his trophies. Why reward him? 

He is pleased that you are wasting your time and investing your resources on him. Your acts of revenge may actually stroke the ego of your psychopath and stoke narcissism. 

Third reason not to seek revenge: It may only give him pleasure. 

Your psychopath may find pleasurable stimulation in your revenge. Why? Because your revenge is an expression of your emotional pain. And it is his observation of your suffering that appears to trigger the release of dopamine in the psychopath's brain. Granted, I'm neither a neurologist nor psychologist, but I have observed my psychopath as he pleasured himself playing cat-and-mouse games with his victims. 

It is a bizarre cognitive dissonance. My psychopath seemed to find satisfaction, affirmation, and pleasure living in a perennial state of fright and flight. It's akin, I suppose, to the thrill of being terrified on a roller coaster. 

Fourth reason not to seek revenge: Revenge is God's responsibility. 

If you are a Christian you may find solace in II Thessalonians 1:6, "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you."

In Romans 12:9 we read, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

Fifth reason not to seek revenge: It doesn't work. 

Psychopathy is generally believed to be inherent. Psychopaths do not change because they cannot change. Once again from Psychology Today, "adult psychopathy is largely impervious to treatment."

A psychopath will not 'learn his lesson' or feel remorse. It's biologically impossible. His behavior is innately woven into the fabric of his very being. His lack of empathy for others is also innate. He will not 'learn his lesson' because he cannot learn to be empathetic or feel remorse for his victims. 

My psychopath lived at the bottom of a perennial dog pile. In spite of years of court actions and countless victims who sought revenge, his psychopathic lifestyle continued unabated. There will never come a point in time when he will end his slanderous assaults against me due to feelings of remorse. Contrition, on his part, is out of reach. Seeking revenge will not change that. Consequently, as long as he has access to persons who know me, there will always be a stream of gullible people who will hate me as a direct result of opening themselves to Slander. It's a tragic outcome; a life-long payback for being compassionate to my "friend in need."  

Sixth reason not to seek revenge: Psychopaths have a penchant for hurting themselves. 

Again: So, why bother? 

Let's assume that I wanted to seek revenge on Ted. What could I possibly do to hurt him that he isn't already doing to himself? 

I can't force him out of his job; he refuses to use his Social Security number necessary for normal employment. 

I can't force him to be homeless; he's chosen that lifestyle on his own. 

I can't force him to be destitute; again, he's chosen his own lifestyle.

I could encourage others to attack him; but he's managed to provoke the anger of scores of victims on his own. 

I can't even conspire to cost him his driver's license; he's given that up voluntarily or, more likely, it was revoked by a court. 

It would be pointless to encourage his victims to sue him; many of his victims already have sued him.

Attacking his reputation would be a wasted effort; he managed to destroy his own reputation. This is why I don't reveal Ted's real name, publish the entire trove of court records, or publicly publish videos of his Slander. 

As noted earlier, Ted is reminiscent of the demoniac who slashed himself. Ted seems to be in a perpetual state of self abuse. 

Again, psychopaths tend to attract revenge from victims and harm themselves. There is no need to get in harm's way. 

Examples? There are plenty. 

• Richard Kuklinski, as mentioned earlier, is an example of an extremely violent psychopath. Known as the Iceman, he may have murdered as many as 250 men during his career as a hit man. 

In an interview The Iceman explained why he began killing as a young man. "Nice guys finish last," he explained. 

Ironically, Kuklinski made the statement from a prison where he died at age 70. If dying in prison while serving five life sentences isn't finishing last, I don't know what is. Kuklinski seemed oblivious to the reality that he was finishing last. 

Like KuklinskiTed was self-delusional and carefully cloaked his psychopathic personality. Even Kuklinski's wife and children were unaware of his criminal activity until his arrest. Ted's son, siblings, and mother seemed oblivious — even defensive — to his criminal behavior. Then, again, I too was also duped for decades. 

• Ted Bundy self destructed. His charming Aunt Bee personality didn't save him when justice came calling. There was no need for the families of Bundy's murder victims to seek revenge. The serial killer was ultimately executed for his crimes. 

• Bernie Madoff self-destructed when his Ponzi scheme was uncovered. Had you known about Madoff's mischief twenty years before his arrest, you would have sworn he was getting away with massive theft. He didn't get away with it. 

Chances are the psychopath who is attacking you will, also, self destruct. That is made evident by the fact that about 23 percent of those incarcerated in America are psychopaths compared to one percent of the general population. 

If nice guys finish last while psychopaths routinely outsmart the system, we would expect prisons to be filled with nice guys. In reality prisons are filled with bad guys and disproportionately populated with psychopaths who arrogantly believed their brilliance could steer them clear of justice. 

Most advisers discourage victims from seeking revenge for the reasons mentioned above. Low-intelligence psychopaths who follow a criminal track hurt themselves. It's akin to a bully punching himself in the face. 

Ted was homeless, effectively broke, and had no apparent future. He lived in a perennial state of self destruction, hiding, flight, and fear. I could not possibly do the damage to Ted that Ted does to himself. Once again, why bother?

Ted's arrogance blinded him to reality. He didn't understand how foolish he looked in the eyes of so many others. While he imagined himself to be Jerry of Conspiracy Theory, others viewed him as a pathetic homeless incapacitated creep who existed in a bizarre fantasy world of his own making. His narcissism blinded him to that which was so obvious to others. He wasn't the brunt of the joke. He is the joke.

The worst thing anyone could do to him was leave him to his own demonic-like devices.

• The demoniac described in Mark chapter five was self destructive. He frequently cut himself. 

Ted slashed himself by abdicating a normal lifestyle. He slashed himself when he wrote bad checks, he slashed himself each time he is evicted, he slashed himself every time he failed to pay his bills, he slashed himself by forgoing a normal home life, etc. It's as if he was possessed by evil forces hell-bent on doing him irreparable harm. 

The demoniac mentioned in Mark chapter five lived in tombs, much as Ted lives in basements and spare rooms of friends. Both Ted and the demoniac were homeless freeloaders. It's a form of slashing oneself. 

I suspect the demoniacs mentioned in the New Testament may have, in reality, been psychopaths. 

Ted is finishing last and, like the Iceman, doesn't seem to know it. 

6. Thou shalt learn from thine experiences

About one percent of the population is psychopathic. Many victimize more than a hundred individuals within their lifetime. Consequently, the odds that you will be the victim of at least one psychopath is about 100 percent. Use your experience to defend yourself and other victims.

7.  Thou shalt not blame thyself

In my research on psychopathy I learned that victims often punish themselves, asking, "How could I have been so gullible?"

Psychologists estimate that about one percent of humans are psychopaths. You didn't create them and it's not your fault they exist.

What's more, they're not going away. 

Unless you're willing to become a hermit, you simply cannot avoid them in the future and you could not have avoided them in the past. 

8. Thou shalt congratulate thyself 

The fact that you've been the victim of a psychopath strongly suggests that you possess a kind and considerate nature that is rife if affective empathy. 

What's wrong with that? Nothing. 

However, you can be considerate without being vulnerable. 

Use your experience to teach and encourage other victims.

9. Thou shalt expect a lifetime of repercussions

I still encounter people who believe Ted's Slander. Former friend's refuse to speak to me because they believe Ted's screeds. Ted received pleasure by causing his victims pain. And there are few things as painful as being rejected by former friends. That is what drives him to continue to Slander me and others. 

That will likely continue for the rest of my life. Thanks to Ted my wife will likely need to hire pallbearers when I die. That many friends, it seems, have abandoned me. 

Furthermore, because psychopathy is pathological, Ted will almost certainly continue to Slander me as long he lives. Considering we are about the same age, I can expect a lifetime of repercussions; the unjust punishment for being kind to my friend by allowing him to live in my office for three years and investing countless hours on road trips helping him secure an income. 

Expect the same.

10. Thou shalt be grateful that your psychopath did this...

No, you should not be grateful that you were emotionally or physically abused. Many victims of psychopaths are wounded for life. Some are driven to suicide. 

There is no gratitude in any of the injurious calamities that befall victims of psychopaths. 

I am not grateful to Ted for scamming thousands of dollars nor am I grateful for his painful Slander. I am not grateful for the harm he caused, perhaps, hundreds of others. 

I am, however, grateful for this: Ted's Slander culled my friends. Thanks to Ted's Slander, I was able to distinguish between my true friends (those who refused to listen to his Slander) and my false friends (those who readily embraced his nonsense). 

Ted separated the wheat from the chaff among my friends and acquaintances. 

I call it 'the Ted test.' Before one can be my friend, he or she must first be exposed to one half-hour of Ted's gaslighting and Slander. If, after that toxic exposure, the individual passes the test by thinking, "I know Kenn. He is nothing like Ted is describing," that person has passed the test. However, if the person embraces Ted's Slander and believes it, that individual fails the test and cannot be my friend.  

I am also grateful to Ted for confirming my perception of faith. People will believe most anything if packaged in a believable context. Christians believe in some bogus doctrines for the same reason they believe Ted's lying Slander. They do, after all, refer to themselves as "believers". 

Everyone, of course, is a believer. We all believe something all of the time. Blind faith in anyone's interpretation of the Bible or in Ted's Slander smacks of foolishness more than faith. Nowhere are we admonished by the Bible to blindly believe everything we hear. We are, however, told that faith comes by hearing and that we are to prove all things, avoid those who cause division, and test the spirits. The spirit of Ted has been tested by documented court records and he has been proven to be a serial criminal. 

• Hands off my neck, until...

There's nothing as welcoming as the angelic smiles and warm hugs of church people. I've learned, however, that those who hug your neck on Sunday may wring your neck on Tuesday. 

Sunday's angelic smile turns to Tuesday's demonic glare. 

The difference between Sunday and Tuesday? Monday!!

On Monday the church people listen to Slander. They believe the Slander causing their angelic smiles and tender hugs to turn to demonic glares. Usually it takes little more than few minutes to poison a receptive mind. 

In essence they are saying, "We'll love you until we hear Slander about you. Then we will hate you."

This akin to the afore-mentioned Ted test.

Sorry, but I don't need that kind of love. Love that is conditional on Slander is not love at all. 

Until Ted began gaslighting me, I never realized how precariously fragile friendships really were. A years-long friendship can be obliterated by a few minutes of Slander. 

• Benefits of distrust

I don't like distrusting church people. However, I can't not distrust them. 

The benefit of that distrust is a psychological calibration. It compels me to view church people with suspicion if not outright contempt. That provides a layer of protection from their malice. 


The mere sight of a country church once evoked illusions of solace and contentment. I now view church buildings as little more than collection centers for bitterness, backbiting, bile, and two other b-words I'll forgo mentioning. 

(Students of the Bible may smile as they recognize that my calibrated perceptions are actually attune to the "inspired word of God" that portrays God's people — from the wandering Hebrews to the brawling congregants of Acts 6 — as constantly being at each others' throats.)   

The sound of gospel music is no longer a source of inspiration and encouragement. Rather, gospel music is a trigger mechanism that reminds me of more hateful glares than I care to remember. Gospel music is like a button: When I hear it, the button is pressed forcing images of demonic glares to flood my mind; memories of stern-faced church people who hold me in contempt simply because they opened their own minds to a demon named Slander.  

The presence of church people is also a trigger. 

Again, Kenn's Law #152: I still like to be around church people if for no other reason than to remind me why I don't like to be around church people. 

Ofttimes I channel surf through religious programming and pause long enough to refresh my mind of the — pardon the neologism — bogusosity of "the faith." And, no, I'm not going to dial your 800 number. 

I am not an atheist nor have I ever claimed to be. There are components of religious dogma that I refuse to believe. I find it disturbing that Christians self-identify as believers. It was blind faith, after all, that compelled so many friends to accept Ted's insidious misrepresentations of the truth and it was blind faith that drove the followers of Rev. Jim Jones to imbibe in grape drink. The same simple-mindedness that led to believing Jim Jones' heresies led to believing Ted's Slander. So go ahead, satiate your mind on the tasty grape drink of Ted's Slander. But be mindful that, like Jim Jones, its tainted with deadly poison. It kills friendships, relationships, and faith. 

Sorry, but only fools would believe the lies of Ted and Jim Jones. Sad to say I was one of those fools. 

• Test the spirits

In summation, I no longer trust friendly church people; at least not until they've been tested by the fire of slanderous gossip. 

Some pass the test. Many fail. 

When a church person hugs me, I wonder: Will this person hug me after he listens to Ted's Slander? 

Again, some will. Many will not. Those who will not are those who rejected the admonition of John to "believe not every spirit, but try [test] the spirits whether they are of God."

How does one test the spirits "whether they are of God"?

One test was presented by James who wrote, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain." (See James 1:26.)

Ted is a man who is among believers.
He seems to be religious.
He does not bridle his tongue. 
He is self deceived.
His religion is vain. 

The word "vain" is synonymous with "useless" or "worthless." Perhaps the word "fake" would be appropriate. 

Oddly, therefore, I see a benefit when church people are exposed to his Slander. It helps me identify true friends while purging those I cannot trust. 

As noted above, a number of ministers sensed Ted's odd behavior. They can be trusted.

Other people listen to Ted's Slander and believe his every word. He has an amazing capacity to "explain things;" to clear up 'big misunderstandings.'

The glares of contempt that emanate from those who've opened their minds to Ted's Slander are nearly always unmistakable. With few exceptions, I can immediately sense the "demon" from Ted.

It's as if God was allowing Tim's legion of demons to unintentionally provide a hedge of protection; shielding me from faux friendships as their warm angelic smiles turn to demonic glares. 

At first it seems painful to lose friends. Then I realize they had never been true friends at all. 

I wasn't losing friends. I was culling frauds. 

• Christianity is a put on

Through gaslighting Ted unwittingly helped me understand that Christianity is a put on; an act. 

When the Apostle Paul instructed Christians, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus," he was effectively instructing Christians to be character actors; to play the part of Jesus. 

As actors, Christians are also expected to look and dress the part by analogously putting on stage makeup and costumes. To that end they are instructed to "put on the new man" (Eph. 4:24). 

Christianity is a put on. Literally. It is an act. 

"Christian" isn't something one is. "Christian" is something one pretends to be. It is a role that is played; an act. 

And nothing is more effective at separating the actor from his Christian act than a brief bout with gossip or gaslighting. 

One day the Christian is in full makeup and costume having "Put on ...  bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another" (Col. 3:12-13). The next day the Christian is out of character and out of costume. The makeup is gone and wardrobe has changed. 

What causes the Christian to abandon his act? The Christian's mind is exposed to Slander by way of gaslighting. The Christian chooses to believe the Slander and reacts out of costume; or "in the flesh," to use the theological term. 

"The new man" is the Christian actor in costume. "The flesh" is the Christian actor out of costume. 

The challenge of remaining in character is described by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:17 in which he frames the dilemma as a battle of sorts between the flesh and the Spirit: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."

That is: One can't play a role as an actor and, simultaneously, be oneself. Christians who attempt to remain in character and present that role as genuine are doomed for failure. 

It is cognitive dissonance: the actor in character and costume versus the actor out of character and costume. Romans chapters six and seven record the apostle's efforts to reconcile this dissonance. In so doing the writer acknowledges its existence and frames it as a struggle between one's spiritual personality and natural personality. 

Again, nothing strips away the new-man act more effectively and efficiently than gaslighting. Ted can be credited with stripping away the Christian costumes worn by so many of my Christian friends. 

The 20 traits of most psychopaths include:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

All 20 are seldom present in any one individual. Trained psychologists use the checklist to score suspected psychopaths using a prescribed method. 

Addendum: Why me?

Why did Ted the psychopath chose me to be his victim? What personality traits and nuances did Ted observe in me that convinced him that I was easy prey?

Recall the study mentioned above that revealed rapists detected subtle cues in their victims. 

'Psychopathy and Victim Selection: The Use of Gait as a Cue to Vulnerability'

Below are four traits -- all of which are related to autism -- that may have made me Ted's prey.

First trait: Gullibility

Those of us with Asperger's Syndrome (Autism Spectrum Disorder Level 1) tend to take things more literally than our typical counterparts. This is often expressed as abject gullibility. 

Ted obviously sensed my gullibility and preyed on it.

Second trait: Loyalty

Aspies tend to be loyal to a fault; that fault being the inability or unwillingness to recognize flaws in others. When we do detect their character flaws, we stand by our "friends" to our own detriment. I literally would have taken a bullet for my dear friend Ted and, figuratively, often did; making excuses for his behavior.

Ted knew I was a loyal friend and exploited that trait.

Third trait: Social isolation

As children some aspies have the ability to clear out an entire room simply by entering. The social stigma of associating with an aspie is that intense. Even as adults we find ourselves abruptly greeted by the backs of heads upon entering a room. Our subtle body-language cues others to literally turn away.  

Aspies tend to highly value the few friends we possess (if any). My psychopathic "friend" may have observed this and concluded that (1) my negligible circle of friends would present little repercussion after he was found out and (2) my meager friend set was tentative at best and could be easily persuaded to turn against me. 

Fourth trait: Body language

There is a term for the study of body language. It is Kinesics. Psychopaths tend to be natural kinesiologists regarding body language. They interpret the psychological drivers that determine physiological movements.

Body language involves more than one's walking gait or tilt of the head. It can also express itself in lack of eye contact, lack of coordination, lack of voice control, flat expression, inappropriate laughing or smiling, etc. Combined, the predatory psychopath senses a wounded gazelle and proceeds to attack.


Literary style typically prohibits the transistion between present and past tense. Throughout this I oftimes transgress against that prohibition. It's by design. It is my method of communicating a bond between the past and future; "What happened continues to happen."

This is seen in the sentence, "He was not the brunt of the joke. He is the joke." 

The reader will also notice that the word slander is capitalized as 'Slander.' This is an implicit reminder that Slander is personified with demonic characteristics. No, I do not believe in demons. It's a euphemistic device. And, no, I do not believe psychopaths are evil. Such characteristics are not useful because they have no scientific foundation. Psychopathy, I believe, is an expression of atypical brain physiology. Humans may perceive psychopathy as evil, and that may be a good thing. The perception of psychopathy as evil serves them well as a protective device. 

Related articles about psychopathy:

Videos to consider include: 

▼ ▼

Please do not submit comments containing obscene, racist, or otherwise offensive language. Although comments are not routinely monitored, offending comments will be summarily zapped if discovered to be unduly gauche.

Comment ▼▼▼

DailyKenn.com is a family-friendly web site.
If you see advertisements that are inappropriate, please notify us via Facebook messaging here ►

Owner: Columbus Marketing Group, Inc. 

Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting DailyKenn.com as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

Comments at DailyKenn.com are unmoderated. Comments containing obscenities, pejoratives, slurs, etc., do not constitute an endorsement of this site, its contributors or its advertisors. Offensive comments may be deleted without notice.
Comment ▼


  1. EXCELLENT article. Thank you for posting this.

  2. The movie 'Primal Fear' with Richard Gere and Ed Norton also how cunning and manipulative they can be.

  3. Fantastic article Kenn. I think a lot of the traits of a psychopath run parallel with narcissistic personality disorder. But this master of the gaslighting beats your everyday run-of-the-mill gaslighter by miles. And over and over to boot. It is interesting to see the percentage of psychos in society as compared to the amount that end up in prison, really astounding but makes sense. Preying on good and decent people is the worst thing someone can do. I've seen His vengeance, karma etc. come to people many times even if not on the victims' time table and not that they're wishing for it, but it does come. And usually far greater in punishment than can be imagined. Anyway, I love what you do with this page and the youtube videos you post. Stay strong! -Crabby-


powered by Surfing Waves