DN Claim: “Michael Aquino was a multi-millionaire who had extensive real estate holdings. I believe that Ms. Hopkins was involved in a conspiracy to steal Aquino’s millions before I was targeted and that there have been attempts to steal his identity . . . I suspect that Hopkins then became curious as to why I was not being controlled by Michael Aquino whose computer I was in. After listening to the internal conversation it became clear to me that contrary to my belief, Aquino really was not in control, identity theft had occurred, and he was being used as a fall guy.” (May 9th 2009 blog post at 5:33am).
Reality: Napolis’ information on Dr. Michael A. Aquino‘s real estate holdings in San Francisco is taken from 1987 media coverage of Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations made against Aquino, which were never proven and which he was never charged for, yet which became the focus of Napolis’ Internet newsgroup attacks. Today, Aquino’s holdings are managed by the Barony of Rachane family trust with no connection whatsoever to Carol Hopkins. Aquino notes in his extensive rejoinder to Napolis’ unsuccessful lawsuit filed with the U.S. Federal Court in 2008, that he has had no contact with Hopkins except as a co-defendant, that Napolis lawsuit was dismissed on 16th September 2008 against all defendants, and that the San Francisco Superior Court issued a permanent Restraining Order against Napolis on 31st October 2008, to protect the Aquinos.
Thus there is no evidence that Hopkins was “involved in a conspiracy to steal Aquino’s millions” nor that Napolis “was not being controlled by Michael Aquino whose computer I was in” (as noted above such an asset class and family trust vehicle are prudent investment and wealth management structures against such risks). This is just rumor and speculation by Napolis to try and keep the interest of her audience, due to her lawsuit’s dismissal by the U.S. Federal Court. In fact, Napolis’ extensive email postings in 1995-2000 under Karen ‘Curio’ Jones and other pseudonyms illustrates her unsuccessful attempts at “identity theft” and reputation damage against Aquino and others, which they have rebutted. Being “in a computer” and hearing an “internal conversation” suggests referential ideation, magical thinking and auditory hallucinations — unless Napolis meant a transparent Apple Macintosh SE/30?
Nor is there any evidence for Aquino being a “fall guy” in Napolis’ fictional conspiracy involving Carol Hopkins as a “gold digger”. Instead, this final claim illustrates four aspects of Napolis’ thought process: (1) People who Napolis has publicly attacked for over a decade are ‘clustered’ into a group (even when her alleged collaborators have a public record of longstanding disagreement, such as Aquino and Scott Locklin); (2) Napolis claims this group is ‘against’ her as a reaction formation when, in fact, it was she who attacked them; (3) When Napolis’ claims are shown to be wrong or falsiable, she creates false claims to misdirect others, rather than re-evaluate her theories, because of anchoring, framing, sunk costs and other cognitive biases; and (4) over time, Napolis uses a ‘revolving door’ to reposition the people she attacks, such as Aquino being a “fall guy” and Hopkins now being the villain (Napolis made earlier claims about Aquino, Locklin and others named as co-defendants in her unsuccessful lawsuit, and earlier in 1995-2000 postings on Internet newsgroups). Rather than disgard her false claims, or adjusting for biases by using Bayes’ theorem for a priori and post priori information, Napolis simply creates more grandiose conspiracies, inferences and speculation as attention-seeking.
Collectively, these examples illustrate Napolis’ defense mechanisms to avoid having to publicly admit that she has been incorrect for over a decade.