Without Conscience

by Robert D. Hare

  Surprisingly, the prison psychologist and psychiatrist thought that Earl had shown improvement during his current stay in prison, and on the basis of their dealings with him they considered him a good parole risk. But, as one of my interviewers said, “If even half of what he told me is true, he should never be let out.” Earl was aware that our assessments were strictly confidential, conducted as part of a research project in which we were legally and ethically prevented from communicating our findings to the institutional authorities unless he actually threatened to harm himself or others. His persona with us therefore was more open than was the one he displayed in preparation for his parole application. As it turned out, Earl’s parole was denied, and he began to accuse my interviewer of divulging what he had confided to him. The interviewer, fearing reprisal from Earl’s friends on the outside, left on a prolonged trip to Europe and is now working in England. Earl was recently released from prison, and my interviewer has no plans to return to Canada in the near future.

  Chapter 7

  White-Collar

  Psychopaths

  The faults of the burglar are the qualities of the financier.

  —George Bernard Shaw, preface, Major Barbara

  In July 1987, in response to an article that appeared in The New York Times summarizing my work on psychopathy,1 I received a letter from Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Brian Rosner of New York. He wrote that he had recently spoken at a sentencing hearing of a man who had been convicted of a multimillion-dollar international bank fraud. “Your words, as reported in the article, described this defendant to a ‘t.’… In the Frauds Bureau, our stock-in-trade is, to paraphrase your words, the shyster attorney, doctor and businessman. Your work, I think, will assist us in convincing courts to understand why educated men in three-piece suits commit crime and what must be done with them at sentencing. For your interest, I’ve enclosed some material from this case. If ever you needed facts to confirm a theory, here they are.”2

  This letter was accompanied by a package of materials describing the exploits of a thirty-six-year-old John Grambling, Jr., who, with the help of a cohort, defrauded not one or two but many banks into freely and confidently handing over millions of dollars, although the two had no collateral whatsoever. An article in the Wall Street Journal describing Grambling’s career of fraud was headlined this way: BORROWING MILLIONS WITHOUT COLLATERAL TAKES INGENUITY, BUT JOHN GRAMBLING KNOWS HOW TO APPEAL TO BANKS AND HOW TO FAKE ASSETS.3 The article opened with this:

  A couple of years back, two businessmen on the make tried to steal $36.5 million from four banks and a savings and loan association. And without pointing a gun at anybody, they actually made off with $23.5 million. Their batting average wasn’t bad, but they got caught.

  The scams rested almost completely on appearances. Between them, Grambling and his associate were able to convince a long line of officials in many lending institutions that they were men to be trusted. In fact, the two finessed an impressive credit rating, repaying one loan by floating another, and so on down the line.

  In searching for an explanation of how such swindles occur, the Journal writer elicited these reactions from bankers:

  • “Banks are highly competitive in trying to place good loans.”

  • Grambling’s “very nice social graces” gave him credibility.

  • A person intent upon fraud “is going to get it done.”

  • Grambling “should be compelled to wear a bell around his neck.”

  As the court transcripts and other legal papers in the package sent to me attest,4 Grambling makes his living by using charm, deceit, and manipulation to gain the confidence of his victims. Although he may be able to offer plausible explanations for what he has done, it is clear from the documents and a recent book on the case written by Brian Rosner,5 that John Grambling’s reported behavior is compatible with the concept of psychopathy described in this book. At the very least, the story is a graphic morality tale about a breed of predators whose charming demeanor and anemic conscience grease the way for fleecing institutions and people—for what is euphemistically called white-collar crime. They have charming smiles on their faces and a trustworthy tone to their voices, but never—and this is a guarantee—do they wear warning bells around their necks.

  For psychopaths who have an entrepreneurial bent, the Grambling case—and others like it—is a model for using education and social connections to separate people and institutions from their money without using violence. Unlike “ordinary” white-collar criminals, the deceit and manipulation of these individuals are not confined to simply making money; these qualities pervade their dealings with everyone and everything, including family, friends, and the justice system. They often manage to avoid prison, and even if caught and convicted they usually receive a light sentence and an early parole, only to continue where they left off.

  Yet, their crimes have a devastating impact on society. Consider the following comments about Grambling, made by ADA Brian Rosner during the sentencing hearing:6

  • The crimes of Grambling are calculated crimes of greed, driven by a lust to exercise power over the lives and fortunes of others. It is a lust often seen in the most vicious criminal. The work of a man of incalculable evil. [p. 87]

  • He has littered this nation with broken careers and aspirations. The monetary destruction he has caused can be calculated. The human suffering and psychological damage cannot, [p. 86]

  • Though his tools are genteel, his instincts are as savage as the street brute, [p. 83]

  In addition to bilking financial institutions, Grambling used the stationery of a prestigious accounting firm to forge financial statements that enabled him to get loans. At the same time, he conned the senior member of the firm—a philanthropy consultant—and his colleague into helping him establish a fraudulent charity for the elderly. To these two men, said Rosner, “Grambling is simply the smoothest con man they have ever met.”7

  CHARMING PEOPLE LIVE up to the very edge of their charm, and behave just as outrageously as the world allows,

  —Logan Pearsall Smith, Afterthoughts, p. 3.

  His crimes were not limited to faceless financial institutions. For example, he forged his sister-in-law’s income tax form and tricked her into signing a mortgage note for $4.5 million. He kept the money and left her liable for the debt. On his arrest, she said that one can’t imagine “the relief I felt when I knew he was behind bars. The little people he’s hurt.... God, he’s not going to be able to hurt anybody now.”8

  His father-in-law wrote that Grambling expressed regret for his past errors, talked of his therapy, his “100% rehabilitation,” and plans for making up for his sins, “all while he was on his way to rip off another bank.”9 While free on his own recognizance Grambling committed additional frauds, engaging in a “coast-to-coast crime wave.”10 His expressions of remorse were belied by his conduct.

  And what did Grambling have to say about all this? Quite a bit, as it turns out. Some of his comments are revealing and worth presenting here as an example of a characteristic typically found in psychopaths: facile distortions of reality even when they know that others are aware of the facts. The comments are taken from a letter sent to the court in an attempt to obtain a light prison sentence, and from the proceedings of the sentencing hearing.

  • I have developed through my training in finance into a financial architect. I am a builder. I am not a professional “con-man” or “scam-artist.”11

  • I never had a legal problem in any job I held prior to 1983, be it related to finance or any other field.12

  • I am a very feeling person.13

  As Grambling was well aware, his statements did not square with the facts available to the court. He was a “scam artist,” he did have legal problems before 1983, and, by all reports, he was not a “feeling person” in the normal sense of the term. His scams and previous legal difficulties are well documented. As a university student in the early 1970s he embezzled several thousand dol
lars from his fraternity. Wishing to avoid a scandal, the fraternity accepted a check from Grambling’s father and did not press charges.

  In Grambling’s first job, in a major investment banking house, his employer considered him a “professional incompetent,” and he was “encouraged” to leave.14 In a subsequent financial job he misrepresented the position he held and cheated the firm. Grambling was permitted to resign and went into business for himself as a forger and a thief.15

  As for feelings, Rosner said of Grambling’s wife, “She had a fear for her boys. Grambling had always been a poor father, emotionless and never available. He had lied to his sons about his crimes, just as he lied to anyone who asked. And he had lied to her, about too many things to be counted.”16 [p. 362] Further, “She never knew her husband: ‘It’s as if I went to bed with a boy scout, and woke up with Jack the Ripper.’ She was as deceived as anyone. She has said that she wishes she had just been raped. Then it would be over with.... One friend, thinking he was being sympathetic, told her he could not understand why Grambling’s sentence was so high for ‘just a white-collar crime.’ She could have ripped out the friend’s throat. The ‘just a white-collar crime’ is something she lives with every day.” [p. 390] And Rosner and his colleagues concluded, on the basis of an extensive report on Grambling’s family relations, that they had never “seen a more comprehensive analysis of the white-collar criminal mind: the relentless drive to accumulate wealth; the use of people to obtain that end; the abandonment of all emotion and human attachment other than self-love.” [p. 361]

  Grambling’s ability to rationalize his behavior is typical of the attitude that psychopaths have toward their victims. In addition to his wish to be “liked by everyone,” his euphemistic view of himself as a “financial architect,” and his “fear of losing face,” he considered his crimes logical responses to frustration and pressure, or more the victim’s fault than his own. “In Grambling’s mind, anyone who is stupid enough to trust or believe him deserves the consequences,” said Rosner.17

  TRUST-MONGERS

  Grambling was able to use his charm, social skills, and family connections to gain the trust of others. He was aided by the common expectation that certain classes of people presumably are trustworthy because of their social or professional credentials. For example, lawyers, physicians, teachers, politicians, counselors, and so forth, generally do not have to work to earn our trust; they have it by virtue of their positions. Our guard may go up when we deal with a used-car salesman or a telephone solicitor, but we often blindly entrust our assets and well-being to a lawyer, doctor, or investment counselor.

  In most cases our trust is not misplaced, but the very fact that we are so willing to give it makes us easy prey for every opportunistic shark we encounter. Most dangerous of all—the “Jaws” of the trust-mongers—are psychopaths. Having obtained our trust, they betray it with stunning callousness.

  One of our subjects—I’ll call him Brad—a forty-year-old lawyer who scored high on the Psychopathy Checklist, provides a good example of a psychopath’s use of his professional position to selfishly satisfy personal needs. Brad comes from a respected professional family, has a younger sister who is a lawyer, and is serving four years for fraud and breach of trust involving several million dollars. He took the money from the trust accounts of several clients and forged checks drawn on the bank accounts of his sister and parents. He said that he had only borrowed the money to cover a disastrous run of bad luck on the stock market and that it was his intention to “pay back every cent, with interest.” In fact, Brad’s reputation for fast living was well known: He had been married three times, drove a Porsche, had an expensive condo, used cocaine, and piled up huge gambling debts with local bookies. He was very adept at “covering his tracks,” but eventually things caught up with him.

  Brad’s troubles were not new. When he was a teenager his parents had frequently bailed him out of trouble, mostly for petty offenses such as vandalism and fighting, but also for sexually assaulting a twelve-year-old female cousin and for pawning a piece of his mother’s jewelry that had been in the family for generations. School had presented no problems for him, he said. “I was bright enough to get through college without studying very hard. Some of my classes were pretty large and I sometimes got someone else to take my place during exams.” While in law school he was caught with drugs in his possession, but he managed to avoid being charged by claiming that they belonged to someone else.

  After serving eighteen months for his last offense, Brad was granted parole. However, two months later he was picked up for attempting to cross the border in his mother’s car (taken without her permission), and his parole was revoked.

  In our interviews, Brad came across as very pleasant and convincing. As for his victims, he said that nobody was really hurt: “The Law Society has a fund to cover these things. I’ve more than paid the price by being locked up.” The fact is, his law partners and his family suffered large losses because of his actions.

  GIVEN THEIR PERSONALITY, it comes as no surprise that psychopaths make good imposters. They have no hesitation in forging and brazenly using impressive credentials to adopt, chameleonlike, professional roles that give them prestige and power. When things begin to fall apart, as they usually do, they simply pack up and move on.

  In most cases they select professions in which the requisite skills are easy to fake, the jargon is easy to learn, and the credentials are unlikely to be thoroughly checked. If the profession also places a high premium on the ability to persuade or manipulate others, or to “lay on the hands,” so much the better. Thus, psychopaths find it easy to pose as financial consultants, ministers, counselors, and psychologists. But some of their other poses are much more difficult to pull off.

  There are psychopaths who sometimes pose as medical doctors, and they may diagnose, dispense drugs, and even perform surgery. That they frequently endanger the health or lives of their patients does not bother them in the least. Ten years ago in Vancouver there was a man who posed as an orthopedic surgeon. For almost a year he performed operations—most of them simple but a few difficult—lived a lavish, high-profile lifestyle, and was active in social and charitable functions. When questions began to be asked about his sexual relations with his patients, his medical procedures, and several botched operations, he simply disappeared, leaving behind an embarrassed medical community and a number of physically and emotionally damaged patients. A few years later he turned up in England, where he was arrested and jailed for posing as a psychiatrist. At his trial it was learned that at various times he had posed as a social worker, a police officer, an undercover customs agent, and a psychologist specializing in marital problems. Asked how he had managed to slip into so many roles, he replied, “I read a lot.” His sentence was short. He may now be in your community.

  TARGETING THE VULNERABLE

  The idea that a psychopath could actually hang up a shingle as a lawyer or an investment counselor is not very comforting. But even more unsettling are the coldly calculated violations of power and trust committed by a small number of professionals—doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, counselors, child-care workers—whose very job it is to help the vulnerable. In The Mask of Sanity, for example, Hervey Cleckley vividly described a psychopathic physician and psychiatrist. He noted that the real difference between them and the psychopaths who end up in jail or in psychiatric hospitals is that they simply manage to keep up a better and more consistent appearance of normality. However, their cloak of respectability is thin and uncomfortable and easily shed, often to the dismay of their unfortunate patients. Most common are the therapists who callously use their positions to take sexual advantage of their patients, leaving them feeling bewildered and betrayed. And if the victims complain, they may be traumatized further by a system primed to believe the therapist: “My patient is clearly disturbed, hungry for affection, and prone to fantasy.”

  The most frightening use of trust to satisfy one’s own nee
ds involves the most vulnerable members of society. The number of children who are sexually abused by parents, other relatives, child-care workers, clergymen, and teachers is truly staggering. The most terrifying of the abusers are psychopaths, who think nothing of inflicting devastating physical and emotional damage on the children in their care. Unlike other abusers, many of whom were themselves abused as children, are psychologically disturbed, and often experience anguish about what they are doing, psychopathic abusers are unmoved—“I just take what’s available,” said one of our subjects, convicted of sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s eight-year-old daughter.

  Several months ago I received a call from a psychiatrist in a western state. She commented that more than a few private agencies contracted by the state to treat disturbed and delinquent adolescents had been charged with abusing the clients in their care. Her experience with these agencies led her to suspect that many of the offending personnel were psychopaths who willingly used their positions of power and trust to sexually mistreat their patients. She proposed that the Psychopathy Checklist be used to screen the personnel of private agencies that bid for custodial and treatment contracts.

  DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY

  There is certainly no shortage of psychopaths who con people into doing things for them, usually to obtain money, prestige, power, or, when incarcerated, freedom. In a sense, it is difficult to see how they could do otherwise, given a personality that makes them “naturals” for the job. Add those universal door-openers—good looks and the gift of gab—and we have a potent recipe for a life of scams and swindles, as someone like Brad could attest.