Knowing the Psychopath : An Uncaring Perfect Predator
I adopt a brilliant disguise. I appear just like you. I pass myself off as being like you. You look on me and see the smile, the well-dressed man who tells the jokes which make you laugh time and time again. I fix my gaze on you, my laser-like, hyper focussed gaze which makes you feel special and wanted. The subjects I speak of, the places I revisit, the images I create with my mastery of words, all of this makes you feel like I am like you.
Yet for all that I show you, you have no idea that beneath this brilliant disguise slowly beats the ice cold heart of a ruthless, uncaring perfect predator.
I understand that there are five basic emotions – anger, happiness, disgust, fear and sadness.
I do not experience anger. I experience fury, yet I am able to maintain an ultra level of control over it so that even though it may churn beneath the surface, there is no alteration in my calm and poised exterior. I present the epitome of glacial calm.
I do not experience happiness. There is simply a void which must be filled with the edifying power of fuel and the extinguishing of ennui.
I experience disgust, yet often I ensure that you never recognise that this is what is flowing through my veins as I listen to the detail of your dull, dull existence. Your day to day activities of such little consequence that I am disgusted by your lack of consequence. Yet, unless I choose to unleash that disgust, I maintain a mask of pleasantry as you flap your gums filling my ears with your tedium. Instead, I must amuse my mind with a dozen ways I would turn your monotonous dullness into scream of terror. I am sustained by the images that flicker through my mind as I calculate your fate by my skilled hands.
I am without fear. It is a stranger in these lands.
I know not sadness. It is for the weak. Such is its absence that I will not even seek to portray its presence unless in extremis and only then because I deem that it is the means to achieve that end.
You look on me and think I am like you. Yet we are of such different world. Within me awaits the precision-driven psychopath that I keep entertained with the playing of games, the accumulation of appliances, the creation of empires, the destruction of dynasties, urgent sex and certain other distractions. This amusement is important, for if I was not so amused, the outcome would be so different for those who would encounter me. The bodies would accumulate.
Stripped of what you feel, I look on the world and often feel nothing. There are times where I feel something – the rage, the hatred, the disgust, the antipathy and the power, but there are sustained periods of time where all there is, is the emptiness. Unlike the pure narcissist who must fight against this emptiness, I am able to embrace it. I am able to allow that emptiness to bleed into the world around me. I see there are times when those proximate to me experience the presence of that emptiness also. I see the shift in their countenance. The nervous flicker of their glance towards me, a sudden shift as if the temperature in the room has dropped by many degrees, a shudder which washes over them. I see then that they have felt what I am although they invariably have no idea what it signifies. Instead, they clamour for the familiarity which I am able to impose through the appearance of similarity.
There are those that think that emotion is irrelevant for my kind. That is true of my psychopathy, its relevance is applicable to my narcissism and its provision of fuel. Strip that from me and emotion would be entirely meaningless to me. I watch the world. Evaluating, assessing, calculating and selecting those who will fall prey to me. All must be controlled, but there are those who I select to entertain me. Those who must be the subjects of my game playing, those who must be drawn into my world, pull downwards into the dark depths of my ocean of malice. I am unmatched in my ability to detect those victims. I see YOU. Those who will provide me with greatest level of gratification stand out to me in the manner of their gait, their stance, the language they use and as my cold, cold gaze falls upon them, I know that it is play time.
With that my nostrils flare, I scent my prey and galvanise myself into action ready to make my way towards you and bring you into my world. Effective, calculating and hyper-focussed, all else about the world falls away as I zero in on you. My mind selects the approach, the words I shall use, I have learned the tones to apply, I have fashioned the signals to send you so that I become of your world so that I can take you into my world and play with you.
I care not for you. You are to become mine and I shall possess you, ready to distract and chase away the ever present boredom. I feel that first flicker of anticipation as the game begins as you turn and already my crystal blue stare and welcoming smile have caused you to notice me and await my attendance on you. Already you are caught in my tractor beam and savour the lifting of the ennui as I prepare to feast on you.
19 thoughts on “Knowing the Psychopath : An Uncaring Perfect Predator”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
After considering the aspects of psychopathy that HG explains, that are also described in various programs and documentaries, I was motivated to delve deeper into the way small babies learn. This motivation arose because I think that early experiences of socialisation may hold some clues into psychopathy. The socialisation I thought about was both in terms of how a baby develops in the ‘mother-baby dyad’ as well as socialisation with siblings, or lack thereof for children who do not have siblings.
When doing a little research into the early emotional development of babies, I came across a number of very interesting YouTube videos in which Dr Andrew N. Meltzoff, a developmental psychologist at the University of Washington, explains the way babies imitate and learn using emotional cues. Very young babies have a relatively sophisticated and complex way of imitating and also learning by watching and responding to the emotions and emotional reactions of the people around them.
A baby becomes aware of its own body in space as analogous or comparable to the bodies of the people around the baby when the baby is touched and held and when there is skin to skin contact. When a baby is touched or has skin to skin contact, the touch resonates in a part of the baby’s brain that is specifically attuned to the particular part of the body that was touched. This resonance in the baby’s brain becomes like a building block in the formation of empathy.
Empathy forms from the emotional cues babies receive from the people around them. Newborns and babies in the first three years are naturally very intent on learning and imitating and the way they do this is by observing emotional cues. The emotional cues are all important soon after a baby is born up to three years because at this age, a baby is pre-lingual, that is, it cannot understand or learn words or verbal instruction.
If anyone is interested in learning more about this, there is a very good, succinct talk given by Dr Meltzoff in a YouTube video entitled ‘Dr Andrew N. Meltzoff – Empathy in the making.’ There are also numerous other videos in which Dr Meltzoff talks about this topic.
When considering newborns and the significance of imitation and learning through emotional cues from both the baby’s mother as well as other people around the baby, to me it seems like there may be an inability or restriction when it comes to imitating or learning through emotional cues if the baby has a restricted capacity to have emotion. For example, say that the baby’s natural emotional responses are impeded or restricted for some reason, the baby does not have the usual or expected reactions to seeing, imitating and responding to another person’s fear expression or anger expression or smile expression, etc.
The development of emotional reactivity begins in-utero, in the first nine months of life before the baby is born. This development is influenced by both biological and psychological factors. It is based on the fetus’ environment inside the mother, including the mother’s smell, the sound of the mother’s voice, the mother’s emotional state and mental state, and the mother’s physical exercise.
If anyone is interested in learning more about the development of a baby’s reactivity while still a fetus in the first nine months, a very interesting and informative YouTube video to watch is entitled ‘Dr. Catherine Monk: The Mother-Infant Relationship Before Birth and Why it Matters.’
The case of Paris Lee Bennett is interesting with regard to HG’s posts about psychopathy.
Paris Lee Bennett is a psychopath currently serving a prison term for murdering his 4-year-old sister Ella when he was 13 years old.
There is a series of videos on YouTube showing an interview of Paris by Piers Morgan in 2019. At the time of the interview, Paris was 25.
This series of videos is interesting because it includes interviews of Paris’ mother Charity as well as commentary from two specialists in criminal profiling and policing. It also includes home videos of Paris with his sister when they were small children, playing and interacting together at home.
While Piers is interviewing Paris, it is clear to see his blank eyes and unemotional expression. Paris also became agitated and contemptuous while answering Piers’ questions. While watching, I could also sense that the cold, blank demeanour was a facade or front to some extent. It was like a lid on a pot of boiling water. The lid holds back the steam and hides the rolling, boiling water underneath, however, the lid is also trembling under the strain and the steam is threatening to escape.
This made me think that Paris is a narcissistic psychopath. He is intelligent, articulate and self-aware and also aware of his surroundings. He is also not completely cold and unemotional. I think he depends on fuel to keep his facade intact. To me, the interview looked like a subtle sparring match as each man tried to assume control during the interview. Since Piers is a narcissist himself, he wasn’t giving Paris much fuel and vice versa.
At one point, Paris tells Piers he can’t listen to a recording of the 911 call he made after murdering his little sister after Piers says he would like to play the tape to get Paris’ reaction. The reason Paris gives is that he knows hearing the tape will cause him to break down. He says, “…when I leave this interview room I have to go back out into a public environment where any sign of distress or emotional weakness is bait to predators.” This reminded me of HG’s description of psychopaths as ‘predators’.
Was this refusal to listen to the tape actually a refusal directly to Piers’ request, in order to gain control in the interview? Or was it a genuine admission that he did not want to react emotionally to the tape? Or was it a pity play about being locked up with predators? There are several ways to interpret his refusal.
When Paris mentioned he would be going back into an environment with predators, the video cuts to his mother Charity watching the interview on a computer from a different room while wearing headphones. Her expression is interesting. She looks smug and contemptuous. This was a little surprising to me. To me, I would think that her expression as his mother (if she is empathic) would be one of sadness or resignation or perplexed introspection. Perhaps her empathy is eroded. Or, perhaps she had little empathy to begin with. It’s difficult to tell.
It is an interesting, and also frightening case. As the interview pointed out, seeing that Paris was capable of premeditated murder at the age of 13, it is very possible that he could repeat the crime if released after serving his sentence.
I’ve watched this interview, plus another documentary which focused on this family with a reflection on the family history – the grandmother (Charity’s mother) is also, in my opinion, a psychopath. It seemed clear where the genetic link had come from, but Charity’s choice of partners also left a lot to be desired.
I believe his mother’s look of what you describe as ‘contempt’ likely relates to her knowing her son has no empathy, and his comment about going back amongst predators was an obnoxious pity play on his part. He killed her other helpless and vulnerable child with premeditation. He told the babysitter to leave in order to carry out his deadly plan.
He has also described how he knew that this was the best and most effective way to hurt or punish his mother.
No doubt her empathy is eroded, but it’s important for her not be be sucked into the vortex of his lies and manipulations and I believe she had been advised to drop contact with him and disappear with her most recent child. Instead she has enabled that child to develop a relationship with him and, last I saw in the other documentary, had agreed to move back in with her psychopathic mother.
It’s hard for empaths to completely cut ties and no doubt it’s a desperate situation for any parent to find themselves in. In fictional terms, it reminds me of “We Need to Talk About Kevin”, in real life terms it reminds me of a recent case of a 13yr old girl stabbing her 9yr old brother to death with no explanation, although she appeared to be extremely apologetic after the event. Medication is also suspected as a possible cause of her actions. There is not the same sense of premeditation in that case either.
I don’t know how any parent comes to terms with a killer child, but the fact is some cannot and will not change. I’d say Paris is one of those children, although a young adult now.
Hi LET,
Thank you for your reply.
The Piers Morgan interview was the first time I learned of the case. Having heard the name Paris Lee Bennett, I looked him up. I then wrote my comment here on the blog soon after watching the interview.
The interview was more interesting and compelling to me in relation to psychopathy because of what HG has written and spoken about. The behaviours and experience of psychopathy as described by Paris and his mother were very similar to the way HG describes his own.
It certainly is a shocking crime. So utterly coldblooded and vengeful. It’s difficult to comprehend how a 13 year-old – and a brother – can be callous, manipulative and vicious enough to carry out such a plan.
I now see that while first watching the interview, my thought process tried to find reasons for his actions. I think that such a crime is so far removed from ‘normal’ expectations or reason, that my mind was trying to make some kind of meaning out of what I was watching. I think that’s why I considered whether his actions could be a consequence of the way his mother behaved towards him. After watching some parts of the interview again and thinking about the case in more detail, I think Charity’s expressions and reactions are understandable. I can’t even imagine what it must be like for her after such an horrific experience.
The interview reminded me of the film ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin’ as well. I’ve seen the film twice. The first time was years ago and while I thought it was unusual and well-acted, it didn’t have much of an impact on me. I recently watched it again with much more awareness and now I think it’s very well done.
While Paris is very intelligent, well-spoken and aware, he is also very manipulative and persuasive. There is a seething fury just below the surface though. Psychopathy is such a strange condition.
While I think he absolutely should be in prison because of the heinous crime he committed, I also see the psychopathy as having a genetic element, that is, the genetic predisposition. While listening to him speak, I could sense that Paris himself was distraught about his predicament. He was sorry for himself and portrayed himself as a victim. He made an argument about being a different person from the person who committed the murder and that he deserved a second chance.
As you have said in your comment, the fact is that he will not change. Like his mother said, “the wolf is still in there” when she described the way Paris talked about his own creature when he was a young boy.
WiserNow, it is compelling to watch these programs with the greater insight and understanding we have now. It’s how I pegged the grandmother (Charity’s mother) as a psychopath as well. Purely my interpretation, but it does make sense of both Charity and her son’s current situation. I think that is what you are describing – the need to try and make sense of how a 13yr old could stab his 4yr old sister to death with premeditation. It is evil. That is obvious. It is also ‘inherent’ in my opinion. Had the mother made better choices in partners, could that have prevented it? Had the mother not indulged in drugs (I believe she also at some point developed a ‘habit’), could that have prevented it? There is a chaos that exists as part of this story which may well form the LOCE, so often the basis of later tragedy. Charity also had a LOCE as a child. The story reaches back at least one generation, if not more. How do we assess it on the basis of that? Should we be empathetic to the perpetrator? It is a question our society seems to be asking more and more these days, yet here we have a case where no amount of empathy is likely to change the trajectory of this young man’s life. As HG suggests, it is a hermetically sealed condition which makes no allowance for change. It is set in stone, and the mother would do best to walk away. Her child is not her child anymore. He does not need her, but he will use her if she allows it. Every now and again she seems to see that, but the obligations of a mother can be blinding.
The other documentary I mentioned was titled “That Family I Had” and it is a very moving portrayal of this family and their situation. I recommend watching it if you get the opportunity. .
It is compelling, LET, to watch programs about cases like this one with the knowledge gained from HG.
I have watched also the documentary you mention about Paris Lee Bennett’s wider family. I watched it a couple of days ago. There were quite a few very telling things there.
The grandmother’s life history raises some huge red flags. At first, I thought her overall bearing was a little too sunny and cheerful considering she was talking about her granddaughter Ella’s murder and then her own husband’s murder. When the program described Charity’s father’s murder (Charity was five) and her mother being accused of organising a hit-man, I thought the same as you. It’s all too close for comfort.
The grandmother also said something that was revealing. She was talking about all of them (Charity, Paris and herself) being manipulators and spoilt rotten. She also said her younger daughter, who helps her on their property, isn’t such a good manipulator because “she didn’t have quite as good a teacher because I don’t do it as often anymore.”
The grandmother then said, “I don’t have a company to manipulate; I don’t have drivers to manipulate; and I don’t have a jury to manipulate. So…” After she said this, she had a smile and a coy expression that made it look like a tell. She actually looked proud of herself.
I just went back to watch the YouTube video in order to accurately quote the words. The impression I have is that the family takes the murders and psychopathy in general in their stride as though it’s normal for them, especially the grandmother. The feeling I get from her is eerie and dark.
When you ask whether we should be empathetic to the perpetrator, my thoughts about your question is that empathy can be considered in different ways.
For example, if I say I can sense someone’s feelings and I have empathy for them, it is correct in that I can sense what they are feeling or I can intuit what they are feeling. That may come across as though I ‘empathise’ or ‘sympathise’ or have compassion for that person. Then, it may follow that my empathy translates into believing or wanting to help or fix.
It isn’t necessarily the case that ‘empathy’ automatically translates into believing or wanting to help.
While I can sense that Paris is sorry for himself and wants people to relate to the “hurt little boy” that was in pain growing up, my ‘empathy’ doesn’t mean I think he deserves a second chance nor that I believe that he has changed or can do so. My cognitive thoughts are switched on as well and they are working together with my emotional empathy.
I think this is where HG’s work has helped a lot. The awareness of the mindset and perceptions behind narcissism and psychopathy make it much easier to discern between feeling the emotional empathy and considering the cognitive reality.
When you say that no amount of empathy will change the trajectory of this man’s life, I understand you, LET. It’s a cut and dried case of a shocking crime. The more people talk about and understand the realities of narcissism and psychopathy, the sooner such greater awareness may bring forth more understanding and knowledge about prevention.
WN, glad you had the opportunity to view the other documentary, and it was very interesting to read some of the quotes from that. Charity’s mother displays multiple and major red flags which to my mind are a good indications she got away with murder. My sense is Charity became a CoD empath which has seen her involved in troubled relationships, and an eventual move back in with her psychopathic mother. You may have noticed in the documentary Charity’s mother’s efforts to put a wedge between Charity and her son, Paris, while he was in prison in the manner of a narcissistic triangulation, also a divide and conquer strategy. This is a variety of the ‘manipulation’ she talks about when commenting on her company, drivers and the jury. My impression is she sees herself as a master manipulator, makes no apologies for that, and is very disconnected from her daughter’s pain and the death of her granddaughter. I imagine she sees elements of herself in her grandson which is likely why she wanted more control and influence in that situation. One can only imagine the effects of combining darkness with darkness.
LET,
The lawsuit that Paris’ grandmother initiated to make herself his guardian and thereby remove Charity’s influence as his mother was very strange. As explained in the program, the grandmother retaliated against Charity’s authority after Charity prevented her from sending Paris the books he wanted in prison. To go so far as to instigate a lawsuit to supersede her own daughter was extremely entitled and brazen, not to mention totally heartless towards her own daughter. It also seemed way out of proportion to go to such lengths over not being able to send Paris books to read.
I think the grandmother relates to Paris and sympathises with him. At one point she said something along the lines of, “Paris had the cards stacked against him.” Also, when discussing Paris, Charity said to her mother, “Paris knows somewhere inside of him that he is dark.” The grandmother responded, “He knows it’s not acceptable, but for him it’s not wrong.” The way the grandmother responded was as though her description of how Paris thinks about himself is something she has a natural affinity with and also defends. Her manner towards Charity was very disconnected and void of emotion during this exchange.
The grandmother’s comments in defence of Paris and his dark nature were jarring considering Paris murdered her granddaughter in a premeditated attack. When the grandmother was talking about Ella, I don’t think her statements had the same natural and spontaneous manner. She spoke about Ella in a stilted kind of way, saying something to the effect of “being with Ella made me a better person.” To me, this didn’t sound like it was a truly honest or forthright statement.
It’s definitely an interesting case to consider, albeit a grisly one. While watching both the Piers Morgan interview and the documentary, I thought to myself that it’s very positive and informative to have such ‘real-life’, evidence-based programs made about this topic.
Wiser now: Excellent. I think while we can pity a rabid dog, it must be put down or locked away so it doesn’t hurt others. Also many killer psychopaths cognitively know what they are doing and know right from wrong which is why an insanity defense fails most of the time. James Holmes is a good example of the insanity defense failing and of a schizophrenic murderer. He would be a fascinating feature. He was the one who dressed up like the Joker and shot people in the movie theater in Colorado. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and convicted to a life in prison without parole. He raised the insanity defense but again his careful plotting and planning ( not too insane to plot murders) and a belief by the jury he knew right from wrong contributed to the verdict. Unlike the dead goat eyes, his eyes looked wildly crazy.
Thanks for your replies in this thread, Contagious. Sorry it has taken a while to reply. This is the first time I have used WordPress in months, which means there are replies – including yours – that I didn’t know about.
I agree that killer psychopaths need to be locked away and the legal system should also be knowledgeable about psychopathy.
It’s interesting that you mention James Holmes and his failed insanity defence. The plotting and planning definitely shows there was cognitive ability to understand what he was doing.
There was a movie I think called A boy named Kevin. How heartbreaking and frightening to have a child be a psychopath. Be told little can be done:( The series on Jeffrey Dahmer had a touch of that with the dad trying to connect to his son by dissecting dead animals in the garage as it was one of the few things Jeffrey was interested in…
Spooktacular! . Fascinating and chilling to the bone. Heartbreaking really.
Psychopaths are like chameleons. They blend into their surroundings.
Not all mean harm though. It is a stereotype to think that.
The things that make us human “Compassion, empathy, kindness” They do not come lightly. Most people learn these things. Psychopaths mimic them.
In a way Psychopathy is a disability. They are emotionally retarded. A sociopath may have had these feelings but can learn to repress and control them. A psychopath is devoid of these. They say you don’t miss what you have never had. So in a way the sociopath suffers more.
HG,
Have you seen the reality show Vanderpump Rules? More importantly, are you aware of the “Scandoval” affair? I feel like it’s blown up nationally at this point. I think it’s brought a huge awareness to narcissism on all levels as it’s being perfectly depicted in multiple cast members. It’s gained so much traction because audience and other cast members have called out their specific pathological behaviors and labeled them narcissists. Watching Tom Sandoval, a clear narcissist in my opinion (I learned from the best 😉), unravel while his life and fuel go up in flames is truly a sight to see. I’d love your input on the situation, if you have any!
No, I have not seen that show Jenna.
Dear HG,
Have you seen the max docuseries called, THE CURIOUS CASE OF NATALIA GRACE?? If you haven’t seen it yet, I’d recommend watching it, and if you do, please let me know your thoughts? Thank you xx It reminded me of the movie, ORPHAN.
No.
HG, Have you seen the series “The Fall”? If so, what do you think about it overall, and what do you think about the main character Paul Spector played by Jamie Dornan?
Yes, but I have not watched all of it.
I thought it was moderately interesting.