A Woman Is Almost Killed Thanks To Match.com, Is Suing Them For $10 Million

match.com killerIf you met someone online through one of those dating website, and the person not only ended up being a fucking whackjob, but tried to kill you, would you sue the site? And if you did, for how much would you sue? What is your life worth to you?

In 2010, Mary Kay Beckman decided to try her hand at the online dating game. After just two months on Match.com she met Wade Ridley whom she dated a few times before calling it off. In 2011, he broke into her garage, stabbed her at least 10 times, then stepped on her head when the knife broke. When the cops finally arrived he actually admitted to them that he was there to kill her. The man didn’t just want to maim her, he, for whatever reason (he didn’t take his anti-psychotic meds?), wanted her dead.

While Beckman was in the hospital healing from her near-death encounter, Ridley committed suicide in jail where he’d been since his conviction of assaulting Beckman. The extra scary part to all this is, at the time of his death, he had a murder under his belt — another unsuspecting single woman looking for love whom he’d also met on Match.com.

OK, before we get any further can we all just *facepalm* for second? I’ve never been on Match.com, but there isn’t some sort of background check? I can understand there not being much of a check for free sites like OKCupid, but I thought that Match, like eHarmony and the rest of them, charged money and therefore it was their obligation to provide a safe environment for singles to meet other singles without having to fear for their life. Was I wrong in this assumption?

Back to the story.

So, here we are a couple years later and Beckman, who’s now in a fantastic relationship with someone she did not meet online and is back up to par physically, thinks someone needs to pay for not only her experience, but the death of the other woman; Ridley certainly isn’t paying for it since he took the easy way out.

Well, businesses that are all about making money don’t have literal jugulars, so the next best thing is their wallet, right? Beckman is asking for the whopping sum of $10 million in damages for her physical and emotional pain. I’m not sure what a life is worth, or if you can even put a price on it, but that’s a hefty sum for which to be asking from a company like Match.com. You know, a company that pretends it’s all about finding people love and long lasting relationships, when in actuality it’s feeding off the desperation of singles. What? Am I wrong? No.

Naturally, Match.com says the lawsuit is “absurd,” while they run around trying to find themselves one hell of a badass legal team to fight this case. Yes, $10 million may seem a bit much, but when we’re talking about lives, a jury might think Beckman deserves that and then some.

FoxNews5 via Gawker

Share This Post:
    • Fuchsia

      This article is very unclear. This man was still at Beckman’s house when the police arrived and he admitted he attempted to kill her? But he wasn’t arrested and went home and got back online to find someone else?

      • Fabel

        I am confused about that also, because HOW THE FUCK would that have happened?? Also, in that case, I’m kind of glad he’s dead, because I now have no faith in the justice system?

        And I think $10 million is a fine amount, although shouldn’t it really be the family of the woman who actually got murdered who sues? (I feel like that makes more sense, since it was the 2nd incident, & Match clearly failed to keep this guy off the site)

      • Amanda Chatel

        @ Fabel: There were conflicting stories from the 3 sites I read… didn’t mean to confuse you. I’ve since updated it to make sense. Apparently, he had been wanted for the murder prior to meeting Beckman. Based on the initial story they made it seem like he had committed the murder while out on bail after the Beckman attack — it wouldn’t be the first time that shit would have happend though. Ugh.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ray.lebowski Ray Lebowski

        From the story–

        “While Beckman was in the hospital healing from her near-death encounter,
        Ridley committed suicide in jail where he’d been since his conviction
        of assaulting Beckman.”

    • Jessica

      Your articles are generally spot on in my view, but I have to disagree here. There’s a major element of personal responsibility when it comes to online dating. Obviously the perpetrator was preying on women, and this was not the fault of the victim by any means, but you must accept a certain element of risk when you engage in behaviours that are potentially risky, which online dating is. No background checks are required by sites, free or otherwise, and even if there were, there’s STILL risk involved. Bottom line, in my view, the website is not liable for the inherent risk involved in their service which was agreed to by all parties through using the service. That said, what a horrible story, and my heart goes out to both of the women victimized by the predator.

      • Amanda Chatel

        Actually, I was just questioning if there were background checks because, as I said, I don’t do online dating. I *did* say that sites like Match.com do feed off the desperation of singles (it’s true!), but as for who should take responsibility for a case like this, I left that up in the air.

        Personally, I think the online dating thing seems totally scary… however, as I also stated, a jury might think she has a case. Who knows…

      • Jessica

        Oh completely. When I read it again also, I had missed that maybe Match could be liable if they allowed the guy to sign back up after she had reported him. Lot of what-ifs. But you’re right, dating sites are completely feeding off single desperation, to at least a rather large extent, and there has to be some element of responsibility on the company’s part to create a safe environment for a paid service. My point was more that no matter what, it’s never completely safe, so on that, we certainly agree. Either way, great read all the same as always, and thanks for bringing a story I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered into the frame also.

      • Amanda Chatel

        I think the lesson for both of us is simple: AVOID ONLINE DATING LIKE THE PLAGUE.

        Have a great weekend, Jessica! (And never forget what we’ve learned here today.)

      • IdiocyAstounds

        Your entire attitude, along with these comments are absolutely absurd.

        I feel like I just eaves dropped on a conversation on the playground with some silly little kindergarteners who have no idea what life is really like and who are afraid of the boogeyman

        Online dating is no different than any other blind date situation, and is to be handled with care and common sense.

        So, because there are phishing email scams we should avoid email like the plague?

        How about we all just grow the heck up, realize that new technology offers different challenges and learn to deal with those challenges properly and to realize that nothing in life (including life in a plastic bubble) is without some type of danger-nor should it be.

        This idiot woman -who is trying to extort money from Match.com-could have had the exact same thing happen in the exact same way had she met the guy through a any other means, and she should be ashamed of herself for what she is doing.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        Yes it is easy to be paranoid but what you wrote isn’t entirely true. When someone sets you up on a blind date, a sensible person would first consider the level of trust they have in the person setting you up, and their ability to assess what kind of person is appropriate to you which implies they have known the person for a while.

        That person you trust is generally a friend or family member, not just the bartender or someone else making money off of dating. In this way match might even be more motivated to set people up since they’re not going to keep paying for a service if they don’t get results, while on a free site their revenue is advertising and if you stay single you might stay on the site even longer than if they hooked you up with dates.

        Yes this woman could have had the exact same thing happen, it’s not impossible but FAR less likely from traditional dating where you’re exposed to the person interacting with other people for a while to gauge their character rather than only the text someone feeds you while hiding behind a keyboard.

      • Scott

        I am not sure how that is the lesson. Do you have any proof that the rate of assaults through dating sites is higher than other types of dating? Lots of people have met and married their spouses thought these sites, myself included. There are bad people in the world. She encountered one of them. She could have encountered him through other means as well. Many a predator has attacked a woman without the use of dating sites. The lesson is that there are bad people in the world.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        Actually I suspect a large % of people who claim they had a good result from these sites are paid marketers posting fake claims.

        Certainly not all of them, but why would we assume dating sites don’t do this kind of guerrilla marketing when so many other businesses do, especially with the online propaganda being so highly visible to netizens since it is after all, ONLINE dating.

      • Douglas J. Bender

        One instance out of probably millions. How about people who meet others through church singles groups? I imagine out of the millions of such matches, there will be those where a creep assaults or kills his “match”. Should singles therefore avoid church singles groups?

      • http://twitter.com/ShawnWhiteEsq Shawn White

        I could have avoided it, but then I wouldn’t be celebrating my 13th wedding anniversary and five kids.

    • Jessie

      I feel like this is a slippery slope. So is the bar ALSO responsible for the knife wielding psycho you meet there?

      • Cassie

        I think the distinction is that you’re not paying the bar to provide you with eligible suitors.

      • ronniehonduras

        Right. Because NOBODY EVER goes to bars with the expectations of meeting someone eligible to be a suitable partner (of various undetermined length of time)…

        Besides, match.com is not offering background screening. Probably some services do, and it’ll cost a heck of a lot more. By your logic, you should be able to sue Ford because their cars don’t prevent all death in ever accident.

      • J Taylor

        Yeah, and the bar certainly doesn’t serve beverages that impair your judgment while in the process of meeting these ‘eligible and suitable’ partners.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        You’re paying the site for the service of matching you up with someone, NOT the service of matching you up with your ideal date because… how do I put it?

        Quite a few of the people on those sites aren’t nearly as wonderful as they think they are, and if a personality of say 5 out of 10 on a scale would be considered average, they’re going to be hard pressed to land the personality 8-10 scoring person they think is right for them.

        If they can’t weed out questionable characters then they may be questionable themselves to see nothing out of the ordinary, no red flags.

      • http://twitter.com/ShawnWhiteEsq Shawn White

        What if the bartender said “he comes in every week and he seems really nice” then he turns out to be a nut – is it the bars fault then?

      • http://twitter.com/dcrasta Hubbie Dubbie

        Its not the bar’s fault, the individual is offering an opinion and at the end of the day you make your own decisions in life. Why does the concept of personal responsibility escape your argument?

    • anya

      $10 million doesnt seem ridiculous at all. People get awarded far more for lesser experiences

      • Jimmy

        Agreed. I’m sure we all remember the lady who successfully sued McDonald’s for giving her hot coffee which she poured all over herself.

      • xMVince

        How could we forget such a tragedy? To see a fresh cup of coffee wasted like that.. McDonalds should have counter-sued!

      • Tina


      • Nunya1

        See the interesting documentary “Hot Coffee” about this case. The 79 year old woman had third degree burns from Coffee served by McDonalds at an unacceptably high temperature. She was hospitalized, had extensive skin grafts over a period of 8 days and two years of medical treatment followed. Her family only wanted to be reimbursed for her medical expenses and requested that McDonalds reduce the temperature of their coffee so others would not experience injuries in the future. The lawsuit ensued after McDonalds refused to put safety measures in place and only offered $800. The woman never received millions of dollars despite the initial multi-million dollar award by the jury. The settlement she received was for much less (reportedly under $500,000).

      • IdiocyAstounds

        the temp was only deemed unacceptably high because the old woman with thin sensitive skin was hurt, while doing something she should hot have been doing.

        Mcdonalds initially refused to change anything, because that is the temperature that coffee is supposed to be, and they were NOT negligent. Do not assume that everything a damned lawyer says is true, and that the so-called “facts” are as they you stated.

        The entire suit was BS

    • Lola

      I’m sorry this happened to this woman, but aren’t the odds of this happening to someone just as likely as if she met the person at a bar or out somewhere? I’m not going to condemn her for suing, I’m just not sure there’s much of a legal argument there.
      “Feeding off the desperation of singles” Jeez, way to make anyone who’s online feel bad. Not everyone is in a position in their lives to be out meeting a ton of single people. I literally know about 15 – 20 people who’ve met their spouses through online dating.

      • Aaron

        Count me in that group. Met her on Match.com to be precise.

      • Scott

        Met my wife on Match.com. Been married 6 years and have two kids now. She could just as easily have met the guy in a bar and been assaulted… would she then sue the bar? There are bad people in the world, when you meet new people, you assume some risk. Match could have a great background check and this would still happen occasionally. My sympathies for the woman in question, but now she is just trying to make a buck.

    • Kate

      This is not match.com’s fault. It’s just an inherent risk of meeting new people, in any way. Sure, they could do background checks to eliminate those with a criminal history, but what if someone has the intention to rape/kill but has never done so before (or been caught). What about those men (and women) who are violent in their relationships but have never been reported. We all take that risk when we online date, blind date, agree to see that co-worker for a drink etc.
      I feel sorry for this woman. But dating websites are basically just offering a database of people who want to participate. They are not making recommendations and they cannot feasibly make judgement calls on people’s backgrounds and character.
      Why is someone always to blame? Sometimes, crap just happens in life and it’s no ones fault but the perpetrator.

      • squishycat

        I thought the whole point of sites like Match.com and eHarmony was that they *were* making recommendations? Pretty much every ad I’ve seen says or implies that they will present you will a list of options that their algorithm thinks matches you best, rather than let you have a go at the site without guidance.

      • Helen

        Based on personality types, the questionnaires don’t exactly ask “Are you an asshole who likes to stab people?”

      • http://www.facebook.com/mrkeithrichard Keith Richard

        maybe they should…

      • tell it like it is

        Maybe you should stop posting.

      • ronniehonduras

        As if this nut case entered info that he’s a budding homicidal maniac.

        This same stupid line of thinking decides “if only we ban guns then the bad guys won’t shoot people”. Criminals don’t play by the rules.

      • xMVince

        Yes, and their algorithms are made by error-prone humans, not Gods.

      • dontaskme2cook

        so if I have a friend that is a nut and introduce him to you as the best thing since sliced bread, it is still your responsibility to make a decision on information you seek and process

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        Yes. Personally I think 90% of Americans are not sane, but I’m not going to present someone as batsh!t crazy when they are merely an average level of insane, because then I’d eventually have to break it to you that beyond a certain age, people who are single, but not because they want to be, usually have serious personality flaws bad enough to make them repulsive, and thus, single. While this may not hold true for newly divorced people, it generally does hold true for both newly divorced people that pop onto a dating site right away, and people who remained single for longer yet didn’t want to be.

        The same safeties should apply to dating that apply to dealing with a stranger in any other area of life. MOST psychos have somebody on their side, if you piss off everyone you end up homeless and/or in prison.

      • tell it like it is

        Do us a favor.Don’t think anymore.

      • http://twitter.com/dcrasta Hubbie Dubbie

        The websites make recommendations based on information provided by ‘guess who’ the applicants, so If I say I love eating tripe and snow sking it will match me with others who like tripe and snow sking, only I dont like tripe or sking . This man could have been predatory and lied his way to improve his chances of meeting suitable ‘victims’..

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        What ends up happening is BOTH the men and women on such sites lie their a55e5 off, trying to paint a better picture of themselves and they tend to idealize the things that society ingrains through mass media as being desirable. It makes things even worse when a person looks over someone else’s profile to get ideas on how to set their own up.

        However, they don’t just match on keywords like food or a hobby, their questions are meant to generalize a personality type then match that. It could easily be that this woman was the female equivalent of her male attacker, but it’s SO easy to see everything in black and white, guilty and “innocent” because that’s how our legal system is set up.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        Maybe a lawsuit happy middle aged single woman does best match a psycho knife killer. After having been on a dating site, I do see some similarities. (Although I’m half kidding, I’m half not – something provoked this guy when he had managed to live up to this point without attacking people like that, AFAIK. Quite a few women on these sites may not be physical attackers but from the emotional attacks they participate in, it’s safe to assume they’d be more physical if they were the stronger sex).

      • http://www.facebook.com/cynthia.mcafee1 Cynthia McAfee

        When you say something, you have to back it, or be held responsible. Now, it is their turn.

      • http://www.facebook.com/susanemercier Susan Mercier

        What exactly did they say?

      • tell it like it is

        You are so right.But here is greed raising it’s ugly lawyer and paid off civil judges head again.

      • http://twitter.com/ShawnWhiteEsq Shawn White

        This women decided to sue. This has nothing to do with lawyers. All they do is file the paperwork. If you don’t like it then stop trying to duck jury duty and vote not to award the money.

      • ronniehonduras

        It has a good bit to do with lawyers and our broken legal system that enables the $ multi billion litigation industrial complex drumming into the heads of prospective clients “there’s no fee unless we get money for you”. Law schools churn out excessive numbers of lawyers who join the American Bar Association, which makes the rest look like choir girls when it comes to Lobbying Congress for keeping the legal system set up so that their parasitic methods of sucking money from the productive hosts of this economy stays wide open for access. It’s brainwashed millions of Americans to view our legal system as a lottery system, with people gaming it left and right for any and all sorts of shots at nice awards, but but the goal is really settlements.

        As for jury duty, I’ll grant you that at least when it comes to litigation as such, the system is modestly less polluted. But even there the ABA has the system rigged with complex jury selection profiling standards that serve to stack the court by preening it from actually being a true “selection of your peers”, and then by dictating very strict guidelines that prevent the jury from acting on its conscience. FIJA is an interesting organization that reminds people of how the legal system in the U.S. has lost its balance of power, and that the Jury was supposed to be much more powerful in how cases were adjudicated. Instead, today the lawyers and the state (the judge) have strong-armed the system into an unbalance of power. The judge is able to act like a King in some ways. In the old days it was expected that a jury would actually judge the law in order to keep a balance of power, so that if laws that were passed by lobbyists that were unjust, the jury could essentially nullify them by not prosecuting them. Today the power hierarchy will jail you if you try that as a juror and they find out. They define it as some sort of contempt of court.

      • http://twitter.com/dcrasta Hubbie Dubbie

        She decided to sue after getting legal advice that she could win. I doubt many people file 10million $ lawsuits without legal advice first. Filing lawsuit papers cost money, and lawyers charge a lot for their time, unless they are working for a percentage of the judgement, in which case she would have had to ask them if they though she had a good chance of winning.
        As far as your statement about jury duty and such, are you aware that a vast majority of civil cases are decided by a Judge, not a jury?

      • tell it like it is

        You are so wrong shawn.It has everything to do with greedy lawyers and civil judges.They are the ones that push these rediculous and frivolous lawsuits which hurts everyone in america except them.The other reason people like this woman, sues,is because she knows she has a chance at getting fruitcakes like you on the jury panel.

      • George Washington

        WRONG!!!!! It IS Match.com’s fault. But nice try owner of Match.com.

      • http://twitter.com/dcrasta Hubbie Dubbie

        How is it Match.com’s fault? Unless Match.com disclosed her personal information It was her choice to meet this psycho, however neither she nor Match.com likely had any way to tell how crazy he was. At the end of the day we all have to be responsible for ourselves, and our choices. I am glad she did not die like the first woman, but saying its ‘their fault’ without proving it or offering a reason why you think its Match.com’s fault is just crazy..
        (So is shouting btw, caps on the internet is considered shouting and rude..)

    • Eileen

      Unless the site claims that it performs background checks, the idea that it’s liable is ridiculous. And even then it would only be liable if it turned out the guy had been arrested/issued a restraining order in the past. It’s terrible what happened to this woman, yes, but it’s Ridley’s fault, not match.com’s. As numerous other commenters have pointed out, the same thing could have happened had she gone on a couple of dates with the cute bartender from last weekend, or the cousin of her friend’s boyfriend, or her coworker’s brother. The fact that Ridley’s online profile matched hers proves nothing other than what he wrote on the profile – what he presented to the world – was similar to what she chose to share. And it’s ridiculous to sue match.com for not warning her that meeting strangers from online is dangerous. Doesn’t everyone know that? I’ve met a couple of online friends in real life, and even when I’ve known them a really long time, we always meet in a public place because I (and they) am not a dumbass. It’s not match.com’s responsibility to let its customers know that they should try to be safe (but even so, I do see an “online dating safety tips and advice” on their site, sooooo…)

    • Louie the Dog

      When a bar charges an entrance fee, do you assume they’ve done background checks on everyone?

      • ronniehonduras

        Exactly. This is perhaps the dumbest, most reckless liability assumption I’ve ever read from any author. Really. Because they make money they’re liable? (Or does Amanda Chatel come from a family of litigation attorneys?)

        On the other hand, If match.com advertises they are doing a background check, AND THEN someone with a deranged history that can be found via a background check slips through, THEN AND ONLY THEN does match.com bear some liability.

        Otherwise, this victim — while certainly unfortunate to have been attacked – should have her case thrown out. This author is a joke.

      • http://twitter.com/ShawnWhiteEsq Shawn White

        I don’t think they should be liable in this case, but yes when you do something professionally i.e for money you are held to a higher standard. Whats wrong with that?

      • ronniehonduras

        So when you’re in an accident, there’s more liability if it happens when you’re going to work (i.e. for money) than when you go to the grocery store for the family?

        What’s at stake is a consensual transactions between two parties under mutually agreed contract. I’ll guarantee you that match.com offers a terms of service contract to all clients stating what’s offered and what’s not that jibes with all marketing materials this woman reviewed prior to agreeing to that contract. Either there is breach of contract liability or negligence, or there is not. That money was involved in the transaction should not change that one bit. Someone else said “it’s not one of those free sites” and therefore they should be liable. No. If the free site offers background checks and does not do them, the it’s more liable than match.com which does not.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        Your analogy is off base. Here’s one more appropriate:

        If you’re in an accident driving a company vehicle then the company and their insurance pays the claim, not you and your insurance.

        Here’s another:

        If you run a convenience store and your cashier takes out a knife and stabs someone, due diligence requires that you report him to police and fire him rather than subjecting further customers to this danger.

        The catch is that I don’t feel match had a due diligence requirement to run background checks, let alone a more invasive and extensive enough a screening to weed out potentially unstable, let alone violent people unless they have a felony conviction. Their effort should be like that of the convenience store manager I mentioned above, to act after they see evidence of wrongdoing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/man.seveneleven Man Seveneleven

      She dated him, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY! It is NOT the dating sites fault she choose to go out with him!

    • http://www.facebook.com/man.seveneleven Man Seveneleven

      “Yes, $10 million may seem a bit much, but when we’re talking about
      lives, a jury might think Beckman deserves that and then some.
      Are f’ing nuts she deserves NOTHING!

      • xMVince

        How about a free lifetime membership? Or will that just add insult to injury..

      • http://twitter.com/desertsands61 Albert Pike

        she is pretty dumpy lookin..might take her awhile to get a date also now that shes’s gun shy. lifetime membership sounds nice!

    • LBC

      Why would anyone leave the responsibility of a background check to a dating website?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1766771797 facebook-1766771797

        It’s a good idea as they are making tons of money, why not take some responsibility. However, as someone has already stated, a background check doesn’t prove that person is not a psycho who just hasn’t been caught

      • ronniehonduras

        they are making tons of money because they offer a service that is valuable to its millions of users, which presently does not include a price level for background checks (we assume…). This “because they make money” they should be liable for services they are not offering is lunacy, and breaks down the mutual-consent-based premise at the heart of liberty and modern contract law. Liability that can be whatever a looting bunch feels it should be when something goes not as planned is complete rubbish.

    • Steven Michael

      I met my wife on Match.Com 10 years ago. She passed away last April from lung cancer. She was my best friend.

      • xMVince

        Sorry to hear that Steve. It seems like cancer is taking more and more lives every day.. I can only hope science is improving fast enough and that one day we can live in a cancer free world.

    • GKW

      Having dated this psycho a few times before ditching him, didn’t she have plenty of opportunity to vet him herself? Background checks can’t pick up mental issues that haven’t resulted in a prior arrest.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6MFT4FPSLZLZUE4LFNZAOHBQU Me Too

        but that’s probably what happened, she was no longer interested in seeing him and he felt otherwise. Problem was, she let him know too much personal information like where she lived, unless he secretly followed her home after a date. At least this is one area where tech gives us a point of isolation in that we can own a cell phone that isn’t tied to a physical address… and if you’re on a dating site, I suggest it NOT be your primary use cell phone, rather a disposable where you don’t mind abandoning the # for a new one should a situation warrant that.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/GYEXVXDBX4APIEKVP55YEPPQW4 X


    • sallysue1

      That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s like suing your friends for setting you up with an axe murderer.

    • Aaron

      Maybe she does deserve some sort of settlement, but certainly not from Match.com. There are disclaimers and helpful tips on the website about how to meet your matches in person. Maybe she should sue the dude who actually assaulted her.

      • xMVince

        Can you sue dead people?

      • http://www.facebook.com/mama.sorensen Katie Sorensen

        you can sue their estate if they have one.

      • Tina

        Ha ha yeah only if they’re DEAD beat dads!!!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000249480533 Ruth Jenkins

        She can’t, he is dead and has no money so she goes for the people who have an insurance policy who will probably pay so they don’t spend money on lawyers. That’s the American way.

      • http://twitter.com/desertsands61 Albert Pike

        cant sue him..he commited suicide in jail

      • texray

        For get ABOUT IT. Play it safe, buy or adopt a dog.

    • jyladvik

      You could meet a psychopath anywhere, not just online. The woman is an idiot for not understanding this.

      • TonyinMO

        I don’t know who the bigger idiot is her or the lawyer that took this case.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000249480533 Ruth Jenkins

      What happened to personal responsibility? I think lawyers have hijacked this concept and now you can sue for anything under the sun. Since insurance companies don’t want to spend the money to go to court, they just end up paying the lawyers because they are the ones who get most of the settlement.
      When you date someone, there are risks involved, they might be the greatest person in the world but they also might be crazy. A dating website can’t determine if a person will commit murder, if they could crime would be eradicated from the face of the earth

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000249480533 Ruth Jenkins

      When I was a teenager, I dated a guy who ended killing his wife seven years after I dated him. I had no way of knowing that he was that crazy. However, as soon as I was not comfortable dating a person who was very possessive, I broke it off. We have to use our judgement and get away from crazy people.

    • Jeff

      Uh, did everyone skip over this part of the article? “The extra scary part to all this is, at the time of his death, he had a
      murder under his belt — another unsuspecting single woman looking for
      love whom he’d also met on Match.com.”…..Wouldn’t the prior murder show up on a back-ground check?

    • Edom Edom

      So if you meet someone through a friend or at church, are they culpable if that person is a whacko. This is just another example of someone not taking responsibility for their own life. If you can’t meet someone in your REAL life maybe you should examine YOUR life. It’s no one else’s fault that you met a whacko, stop looking to the internet for all life’s answers. Take time to meet people and build strong relationships, know who someone is and where they come from. Even then you can’t be 100% sure, but at least you have your own instincts to trust….

    • http://www.facebook.com/doesit.matter.946 DoesIt Matter

      It’s her own stupidity that put her in the situation. Can she sue her parents for being born stupid?

      • http://twitter.com/ShawnWhiteEsq Shawn White

        Yeah, you’ve never dated anyone you shouldn’t have,

    • http://www.facebook.com/rusty.webker Rusty Webker

      This is Mary’s fault 100%. She chose to use match.com.

    • Sunny

      Agree with a number of comments below about there not really being any questions that ask if you are a knife-wielding psycho, but on top of that… If there WERE questions like that as part of their profile questionnaire, how could you ever ensure that people actually answer the questions honestly?

    • Alli

      Calling people who use online dating sites “desperate” is a complete insult. So all singles who use any reasonable method to meet other singles are desperate? You have no class. Unless a site or a bar or a school or anywhere else you may meet another single specifies that it conducts background checks on all its participants I think you can safely assume they do not, especially if they didn’t conduct a background check on you when you joined/walked in/signed up .. etc. I’m not sure how she can be surprised that no background check was done on the crazy person when she herself was not required to have one.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1766771797 facebook-1766771797

        sorry, i see those people as desperate as well

    • BevYaks

      This isn’t Match.com’s fault. It’s easy to run a background check on someone. If you use dating sites, be aware that you are going in blind. At least if a friend sets you up, they know the person. Dating sites are risky. Beware.

    • http://www.facebook.com/susanemercier Susan Mercier

      Who is the bigger moron, the author if this story or the woman brining the lawsuit?

    • http://www.facebook.com/kelswick Kari Leah McCabe

      I met my husband on Match.com. It is not the fault of the website. If she’d met him in a bar, would she sue the bar? She should not have let him know where she lived until he’d proven himself to not be a danger to her. There are some common sense practices that must be followed when using sites like these. Shame on her for trying to profit from the situation.

    • capricorn

      Background checks, the same as the sexual predator’s list, only ‘”protect” you from the ones who have been caught….that does not mean they aren’t a potential psycho

    • http://twitter.com/Hvacrpro Hvacrpro

      One note people….. Doesnt matter if they have a criminal history….. truth be told, there are many more people who stab n murder women who are not in jail, than there are in jail or prison. just a lil eye opener…. not my facts. just the facts.
      She had to of did her screening questions herself , not just rely solely on a pc match to sum up her whole life. One last thing… if women could stop relying on having girlfriends to give them courage, and just meet a guy by asking him out or flirting with him without all the drama… of playing games and fear of rejection, there would be alot less drama and less dating sites. most women lost their purpose and way in life in society.

    • J Taylor

      There are risks meeting people anywhere and under any circumstances. If a background check is wanted, any individual can do that and pay the fee – if it’s that important to them. I met my husband on Match.com 12 years ago. We will celebrate our 10 year anniversary in July. No doubt we’ll be married to each other for the rest of our lives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Smig-Robustus/1800672067 Smig Robustus

      It’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault, no? I mean, if there is a motto for today’s american, that’s it. Your fat, SEF……you get fired…SEF……….., your poor, SEF……..your kid flunks out, SEF.”….you get drunk and drive…..SEF,………..IT REALLY IS PATHETIC

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/CJ-Turner/100003200809737 CJ Turner

      Women don’t like to take responsibility for their bad choices in men. That is why we have generational welfare and Ovomit

    • Sue

      Match.com isn’t liable at all. Why not sue the man’s parents, grandparents, relatives and teachers? They are more responsible for the man’s behavior than Match.com. Why not sue the inventor of the Internet? Without the Internet, she wouldn’t have been stabbed. Why not sue the manufacturer of the knife?

    • dontaskme2cook

      It says she met him a few times and after broke it off he came to her house….I date a little longer than that off those sites before they know where I live….that wasn’t Match.com’s fault

    • John

      this is such crap. this is the risk you take when you CHOOSE to find a mate on a dating site. YOU made the choice. why hold the site accountable for a choice YOU made? YOURE an IDIOT!

    • jimv

      She dated him ” a few times”.
      After the initial meeting, there is no way in the world that the website could possibly be responsible for what he did after she got involved with him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/js.earthlink JS Earthlink

      I believe you will find that a much higher incidence of violence to women/ men who have initially connected ‘off line’.

      Especially because many people take the wise step of obtaining verrified background info before they meet.

      Keep in mind that at least half of the tens of millions of ‘first dates’ in the U.S. each year are of people who ‘met’ online.

      So, simply look at how many first-dates occurred in any period among ‘online’ vs ‘off-line’ individuals.

      MatchCom, alone, has 10 million members; I’m one of them. I met- in person, 14 MatchCom women last year.

      I’ll bet bet statistics will show that online orignated first dates are 10 to 50 times less likely to be violent.

    • Guinness Gal

      Losers meeting other losers in the only way some people can make it happen.

    • Jeff

      If she met the guy i church would she sue them? The other point to make is that she “dated him a few times”, if she couldn’t tell what kind of guy he was how did she expect match.com to? Besides what about personal responsibility and doing your own background check?

    • http://twitter.com/desertsands61 Albert Pike

      looks like shes trying to play the blame game and to pad her retirement with a huge suit . she knew nobody at match.com does background checks on anyone. i met my wife on love@aol.com before they started charging for it. been together 13 years and never looked back.just sounds like Beckman is a manhater now and vengeance is gonna be a bitch for someone pay!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1766771797 facebook-1766771797

        no – it seems as if she met a psycho and she doesn’t appear like she’s seeking vengeance. what the hell is wrong with you

      • ChocoCatSF

        so you believe she should sue anyone that recommended Match.com?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Smith/100003342846864 Kevin Smith

      Just as stupid as suing the bar where you picked up Mr. Goodbar….

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1766771797 facebook-1766771797

      Anyone with any intelligence should know that anything with a stranger is dangerous, online dating, craigslist, anything where you are going to meet someone that you do not know – you are taking a risk – kinda scarey

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1766771797 facebook-1766771797

      I met my husband in a bar – that somehow feels safer than the internet LOL

    • George Washington

      How about jail time for the owners of Match.com for criminal neglegence.

    • http://twitter.com/dcrasta Hubbie Dubbie

      Umm, Match only lets you email each other. You still have to decide on meeting the person so she should have done her own investigation before inviting some psycho to her home. I dont want to blame the victim, but I dont want to blame Match.com either. I think 100% of the blame rests on the deceased attacker, and this woman should not attempt to profit from this tragic loss of life (the first Victim RIP).,

    • Pat

      You’ve all missed the kicker here: how did he know where she lived? If he located her through his own research, that really bites. If he knew because she took him there or had him pick her up there, then that responsibility is hers. There is no way that it is smart to let a stranger know where you live until you know them well enough to trust them; that she broke it off after 8 days says she never trusted him… so how did he know? Online dating sites set up blind dates, that’s all. The responsibility for being safe when meeting and getting to know these blind dates lies with both parties… that’s why every place that gives advice on this topic says to meet at a public place for the first several dates. She probably placed herself in danger, and she should really shoulder that responsibility… if she didn’t, then she needs to accept that life occasionally sucks.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1303698847 Julie Claflin

      I’m not sure which way to go on this. I met my husband on the internet and I’m not sure I think it’s any more dangerous than meeting someone in a bar or anywhere else in public. If the predator decides to prowl the churches, they aren’t safe either. I do tend to think that since E-Harmony makes such a big to-do out of matching people up in some psychological testing method and charge a pretty hefty fee and since match.com also charges for the privilege of meeting someone giving the impression that they are a cut above the rest of the meeting sites, maybe they do have some liability. Whether that much or not is up to the courts.

    • Emmie

      People should have enough sense not to use these sights.

      • http://twitter.com/jwranson Justin Ranson

        I know several people who have gotten married to people found on internet dating sties.

    • Tony_SFO_YUL

      Well she might get Rich but not yet happy.

    • Brian

      So lets consider the alternatives here. Rather than charging me $40 a month for an opportunity to meet someone online they could charge $100 and use the extra to pay for teams of people to dig into every aspect of my life, question my friends, my neighbors, and my kindergarten teacher. Then they could hire psychologists to perform a full psychological evaluation. When you use an online dating service you are just trying to meet someone, not get a top secret security clearance. The fact is there are risks and just because you pay a monthly fee those risks don’t go away.

    • get real

      If someone can sue for ordering coffee, because it does not have hot written on the cup, spill said coffee on themselves. Recieve millions why not sue for letting a nut job, you met online, know where you live.

    • ericasl

      i hope she gets 20 million, and that coward took the easy way out!…unreal.

    • Ilove Shoes

      The biggest problem with this is she took him to her home. She needed to google the hell out of this guy, run a background check and on the first date insist on seeing his driver’s license to make sure he is who he says he is. It would have been better for her to keep the contact strictly to a phone conversation for at least 2 or 3 weeks, not letting him rush her into meeting face-to-face. When the first date did happen to meet at a public place where she could walk to restaurant and he would not know what kind of car she drives or try to get her license plate number and then look-up her address. Women have to take major precautions, because a lot of those guys on Match have personality disorders or other mental issues going on. Many of them have been single for over twenty years and swear they can’t find the right woman. Look for major red flags beforehand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1225938903 George Ray

      She would have been better off meeting someone on Craigslist. (Hey, I did get two great housecats from CL)