International Institute for Strategic LeadershipHome.html

.

The LSE revealed the identity of the stalker at the centre of

the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education:

Julie Katherine Dipuppo (Rufo)

The Claimant in the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education

has refused to reveal the identity of the stalker and has insisted on keeping her anonymity

ever since she stalked and exposed herself to him over six years ago.


Against the wishes of the Claimant,

who tried in earnest to protect the identity of the unstable stalker,

the LSE nonetheless insisted on driving this scandal into the UK courts where the principles of Open Justice prevail which would necessarily reveal the identity of the stalker.


Even the High Court judge warned the LSE that the identity of the stalker would

necessarily be revealed and anonymity could not be maintained

and that the LSE apparently had not thought this through.


What the Judge warned of and the Claimant tried to protect

is the following information taken from the Court documents:


1) The stalker is known as ‘Ms D’.  She is female with a surname beginning with ‘D’.

2) She graduated from the LSE in 2012 with a Masters degree in Management.

3) She received a Distinction on this course.


A Google search for “LSE” and “Masters in Management” and “2012

produced as the third entry the following LSE website and LSE document:

https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/Secretarys-Division/Assets/Documents/LSE-Digest/LSE-Digest-2011-2012.pdf


On page 96 of this LSE document,

of the 11 LSE students earning a Distinction in Masters in Management in 2012,

only one person had a surname beginning with “D”.  This person was also female:

Julie Katherine Dipuppo

(see excerpt from LSE document below):

Julie Dipuppo changed her name to Julie ‘Rufo’


A Google search also confirms the allegations in the media’s coverage

of the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education,

that after Ms D’s false and malicious lies were determined by the LSE to be not proven,

it appears that Ms D fled the country and changed her surname from ‘Dipuppo’ to ‘Rufo’.

As Ms Dipuppo Rufo remains unmarried,

it is believed that she changed her surname to her mother’s maiden name.


As Ms D refused to appear in the UK High Court to defend her actions,

one might logically presume that her change of identity

and her refusal to answer the stalking and harassment charges against her

was an implicit admission of guilt and shame.



Finally, IISL interviews with a number of the over 100 people around the world

whom Ms D contacted when she widely and publicly defamed the innocent Claimant,

confirm the LSE’s revelation of Ms D’s identity.


Undoubtedly, it is precisely this unethical behaviour on the part of Ms D

that the High Court Judge was considering when she declared that

maintaining Ms D’s anonymity would not be possible.


Ms D’s own unethical defamation campaign revealed to the world her identity.

The fact that the LSE forced the case into the Open Justice of the UK High Court

under the scrutiny of the attendant international media

simply made sure that Ms D’s identity would be revealed and amplified internationally.


After Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s ill-fated malicious defamation campaign

against an innocent professor backfired on her,

she has not only changed her name, but she has withdrawn from all social media:

Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, etc.



Ms D has unfortunately harmed the important global #MeToo movement

as she demonstrated that women can commit acts of gross sexual misconduct

followed by false and malicious accusations against innocent men.


Ms D also points to the dangers of employing unstable people in the workplace.

IISL research has also found comments in the media’s coverage

of the largest lawsuits in the history of Higher Education,

which appear to confirm the identity of the stalker,

as revealed by the LSE

(see the comment below):

LSE stalker who exposed herself in an LSE research meeting, dresses as a call-girl/escort/prostitute.

“... infatuation with [the professor]...


... smitten subordinate...


... Miss D often wore miniskirts that revealed her underwear and crawled on her hands and knees to plug in her laptop in a needlessly provocative manner.


... Miss D’s unwanted attention...


... she had a crush on him; she dressed provocatively, behaved suggestively and became ever more obsessed with him until one [morning...] she appeared before him in a state of undress.


Much was made in court of her dress sense and suggestive actions, painting a caricature of a desperate woman constantly seeking attention. A colleague also gave evidence, suggesting that Miss D ‘wasn’t dressing appropriately to represent the LSE’.


... with an unhappy childhood... (her father had sexually abused her)... Miss D grew even more flirtatious...


A text conversation revealed in court between Miss D and a colleague suggests her fragile state of mind... when she told her colleague she had ‘done something wrong’, that she had ‘messed up’.


... ‘damaged’ and ‘unstable’, and a liar who used ‘feminine behaviours to get control over men.’


... an internal [LSE] investigation found [Miss D’s] complaint against [the professor] ‘not proven’ and the LSE’s director apologised for its handling of the case.

LSE stalker, Julie Katherine Dipuppo (Rufo) described

in the World’s Largest Circulating Online Newspaper as

‘flirtatious’, ‘smitten’, ‘infatuated’, ‘obsessed’ and ‘desperate’

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock’s Witness Statement


Paragraph 59.  “Ms D greeted me at the door without her bottom half covered. I was shocked. Although she was wearing some sort of a sweater-top, it did not cover her private parts, and I immediately told her to finish getting dressed, which she did.”

Cross-examination of Dr Theodore Piepenbrock


Defence Barrister: “And you say you went to her room and she was wearing just a sweater which did not cover her private parts?”

Claimant: That is true.”

Defence Barrister: Naked?”

Claimant: “I cannot confirm that. What I will say - and it is important that you know this, my Lady - as she stood there my eyes glanced down and glanced up immediately and what I can confirm, and I am under oath, she either was wearing black underwear or...  the colour of the pubic hair was black.  So I can confirm there was black and that is and I cannot confirm whether she was - one hundred per cent if she was naked.”

Defence Barrster: “That is completely inappropriate behaviour on her part?”

Claimant: I am in one hundred per cent agreement with you.”

Defence Barrister:You were shocked?”

Claimant: I was shocked.”


Mrs Justice Davies: “... you described when you saw her at the door --”

Claimant: Yes.”

Mrs Justice Davies: “-- reading your statement it sounds as though she was wearing some sort of sweater or a jumper, is that it?”

Claimant: That is true, yes.”

Mrs Justice Davies: “What, long sleeved, short sleeves?  If you cannot remember say.”

Claimant: “You know what, I think it was long sleeve - it was a long - like a baggy sweater that - you know, it was long but it did not - it was not long enough.”

Mrs Justice Davies: “You mean it did not cover that part --”

Claimant: Yes.”

Mrs Justice Davies: “-- that you, in your statement, describe as private parts and today you say it did not cover what was either underwear or pubic hair?”

Claimant: That is right.”

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock’s Particulars of Claim


Paragraph 17.1. “Ms D welcomed the Claimant but when she opened the door he could see that she was not fully dressed. She had no trousers on. She was wearing a sweater-top which did not cover her private parts. This was completely inappropriate to the Claimant. The Claimant told her to get dressed, which she did.”

High Court Judgment


Paragraph 20. “The next morning the claimant rang Miss D to arrange a meeting.  He suggested they met and worked in the hotel lobby, she suggested they worked in the office area of the suite and he agreed.  The claimant asked if she was dressed and ready to go, she said yes.  He knocked on the door of the suite, when Miss D opened the door she was wearing a sweater top which did not cover what he described as “her private parts”.  In his evidence the claimant said he looked down briefly and could see black, either her underwear or her pubic hair.  He told her to finish getting dressed which she did.”

Paragraph 227. “Having considered the evidence relating to Miss D’s conduct... I have concluded that whatever it is Miss D did when she opened the hotel door to the claimant... she did not view her conduct in the same serious or inappropriate light as the claimant. This may well demonstrate a lack of insight on her part as to what is appropriate conduct but it would be in keeping with her previous behaviour in the department in respect of which no one at the LSE appears to have said anything to her.  Given this conclusion I do not regard her omission in her complaint of any reference to this “incident” as sinister or of real significance.”

Contemporaneous written evidence by Ms D, the LSE stalker

(Skype text conversation from Ms D to her former LSE classmate, 13-15 November 2012

after the Claimant strongly reprimanded Ms D for her gross sexual misconduct)



“things aren’t going so well... i’ve done something wrong… i’ve messed up badly… i am ‘being destructive’... i don’t think he expects me to be around when he gets back… i can’t believe that i’ve messed this up… it was obvious there was a huge problem... i’m such an idiot... i don’t want to give up on this, but he’s already given up on me… i thought we were going to do big things… i said he would be on a shortlist of ‘the coolest guys I know’... Ted was absolutely furious with me… he doesn’t trust me, because i’m unstable... he accused me of doing things to attract him, so i have control over him… he was also telling me that other people think i do the control thing too… he implied that others have said I use myself to attract and control other people… he says i’m unstable.  he says i’m out of control.  i’m some kind of evil seductress...  i use certain behaviours to attract men so that i have control over them, and he told me that other people know this about me… and then - god i called my family bc (sic) i didn’t know up from down anymore... and my mother called him!!!!!!  ugh, it doesn’t feel like i’m close to reality… please don’t mention that I said anything to you...”

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo, the LSE stalker who exposed herself to a male professor.

Find out if this constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sample Comments from Readers

Histrionic Personality Disorder

Behaviors may include... sexual seductiveness in inappropriate situations, including social, occupational, and professional relationships, beyond what is appropriate for the social context.  They use physical appearance to draw attention to themselves.  Their style of speech is excessively impressionistic.


The disorder occurs more frequently in women.


For a diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder to be given, five or more of the following symptoms must be present:


  1. Self-centeredness, uncomfortable when not the center of attention

  2. Constantly seeking reassurance or approval

  3. Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior

  4. Rapidly shifting emotional states that appear shallow to others

  5. Overly concerned with physical appearance, and using physical appearance to draw attention to self

  6. Opinions are easily influenced by other people, but difficult to back up with details

  7. Excessive dramatics with exaggerated displays of emotion

  8. Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are

Individuals with histrionic personality disorder may have difficulty achieving emotional intimacy in romantic or sexual relationships. Without being aware of it, they often act out a role (e.g. “victim” or “princess”) in their relationships to others. They may seek to control their partner through emotional manipulation or seductiveness on one level, yet displaying a marked dependency on them at another level.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo is a published academic

and expert in ‘Rumor Mongering’

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo sued her previous employer

The LSE revealed that Ms DiPuppo/Rufo appears to have

filed at least one failed lawsuit against her former employer,

which she apparently withdrew before trial.

The IISL would like to thank all those former friends and colleagues of Ms Dipuppo/Rufo

for providing information and photos.


If you have more information that you would like to share,

contact: postmaster@ii-sl.org

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for wearing micro-skirts and

posing for photos seductively trying to reveal her undergarments.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s biography

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for

revealing her undergarments in public.

According to sources, Ms Dipuppo/Rufo was born on 2 February 1988.

She is an unmarried 31 year-old American from Pleasant Valley, New York.


Ms Dipuppo/Rufo attended Hagan Elementary School in Spackenkill, New York,

Arlington High School, LaGrangeville, New York (2002-2006),

Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania (2006-2010),

the London School of Economics (2010-2012), where she was also briefly an employee.


Ms Dipuppo/Rufo alleges that she was “Employee #3” of a bankrupt minicab company,

she became an analyst at The Gartner Research Board,

and she currently works at Mumford Sole Partners, New York.



On 9 November 2012, after interviewing via phone for a position at The Research Board,

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo confided in a colleague at the LSE

that she was not impressed with the company and would never work there:


“I would rather gouge my eyes out than work for The Research Board!”


After Ms Dipuppo/Rufo committed an act of gross sexual misconduct against her boss, he immediately terminated her working relationship with him on 15 November 2012

and he filed a formal grievance against her.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo could no longer work for the award-winning professor

and was forced to take the only job left available to her,

working for a company that she stated that she detested:

The Gartner Research Board.


On 12 February 2018,

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo was observed trying to leave The Gartner Research Board,

posting her CV on Indeed.com, secretly using her original surname, Dipuppo.

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for

attempting to strike provocative/seductive poses.

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for proudly displaying

her oversized undergarments in public.

Just as Ms Dipuppo/Rufo sexually harassed and falsely accused an innocent professor,

she presciently published two academic papers in psychology journals:

  1. 1)how false rumours spread among students can ruin the careers of their teachers;

  2. 2)how false information from daughters to mothers can contaminate legal trials.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for

dressing as a call-girl/escort/prostitute.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo accused her father of serious abuse

High Court records reveal that

when the Claimant tried to confront the Ms Dipuppo/Rufo about her sexual misconduct,

she conceded that her emotional instabilities (and other alleged mental health issues)

arose out of many years of alleged serious abuse by her father, Nicholas (Nick)

directed towards herself, her older sister, Jaime and her mother, Constance (Connie):


“My mom has been less and less able to weather my dad’s ‘episodes’...

she won’t be able to handle it if/when he is fired again.

Things were very, very bad in the weeks leading up to his leaving

and now my mom is having some scary health issues

as a result of the extreme emotional stress/trauma...

it seems likely that there are long term implications.”

(Email from the Ms Dipuppo to the Claimant, 6 November 2012, 18:56 pm)


Ms Dipuppo/Rufo also stated that her father, a commercial airline pilot,

allegedly suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, a disease known for symptoms of mood swings.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo rather coldly remarked about her father’s serious illness:


“He has MS, but that’s no excuse for his abusive behaviour.

He’s crazy.  He flies planes for a living, but he never told his employers that he has MS...”

(Ms Dipuppo to the Claimant, 12 November 2012, 20:30pm)


In spite of the fact that the stalker refuses to use her father’s surname of “DiPuppo”,

and instead, uses her mother’s maiden name of “Rufo”,

the IISL can not confirm Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s serious allegations against her father.


IISL research, corroborated by official LSE investigations and a High Court judgment,

(as reported in the international media),

indicate that Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s allegations against an innocent professor

were unproven and ultimately false and malicious.


This casts doubt on Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s serious allegations against her father.

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s identity will be further revealed

in the UK Courts and international media in the upcoming

multi-million Pound Employment Tribunal lawsuit in 2020

Ms Dipuppo/Rufo’s promiscuous appearance & behaviour

Female High Court Judge:

“It is now apparent that she [Miss D] had become infatuated with the claimant... showing ‘dog-like devotion’.”

“...Miss D’s style of dress was inappropriate, she would often be in short skirts and low-cut tops. ...Miss D was not dressing appropriately to represent the LSE.”

“...Miss D’s ‘obsessive’ behaviour, her dress and how she acted towards the claimant...”

“...behaviour bizarre...”

“Miss D had developed something of an infatuation for the claimant.”

“...Miss D did behave in a provocative, even sexually provocative manner towards the claimant, it would not be inconsistent with her previous behaviour at the LSE.”

“I accept that Miss D’s conduct... caused the claimant considerable concern.”

“There is nothing in the evidence before the court to suggest that the claimant positively encouraged any behaviour or advances by Miss D...”

“... with the micro skirts, thigh length boots and dog like devotion, most people can make an intelligent guess [about Ms D’s stalking]...”

Comment from a mature, female business executive in the LSE’s postgraduate programme taught by Dr Piepenbrock

(in which Julie Dipuppo/Rufo was the teaching assistant).

The female business executive complained on 16 December 2012 to LSE Department Head, Saul Estrin

about Ms Dipupo/Rufo’s inappropriate appearance and unprofessional behaviour.

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo characteristically draped over male students,

exhibiting her extremely short “micro skirts, thigh length boots and dog like devotion”.

Mumford Sole Partners

hires stalking ‘Rumor Monger’ as Chief Content Officer

As of 2019, Ms Dipuppo/Rufo was hired by Mumford Sole Partners

a small, British, husband-and-wife consultancy operating out of their home in New York.


It is believed that Ms Dipuppo/Rufo never informed them:


  1. 1)that she was dismissed by her previous boss for gross sexual misconduct;

  2. 2)that her false and malicious grievance against him was dismissed;

  3. 3)that she unsuccessfully attempted to sue her former employer;

  4. 4)that her gross misconduct resulted in the largest lawsuits in Higher Education;

  5. 5)that a UK High Court judge ruled that she was “infatuated”& “sexually provocative”;

  6. 6)that she was humiliated in the international media.



The professional and client community were very surprised that

Mumford Sole Partners hired Ms Dipuppo/Rufo:


“It is rather embarrassing that Peter [Sole]

would hire a woman [Ms Dipuppo/Rufo] with such a reputation...


I can’t imagine that Helen [Mumford] knew anything about

this woman’s history of stalking older, married men...

she [Mumford] would never have allowed him [Sole] to hire her.


It sadly begs the question if there is trouble in their marriage...

which would be a shock to all of us.”



Senior university staff long warned of Ms Dipuppo/Rufo:


“I have long-predicted that given Ms D’s psychological problems,

she will target another older (probably happily-married) male employer

and try to lure him in with her intelligence and work-ethic.

If he is a gentleman and spurns her unwanted advances,

she will suffer another breakdown and spread career-ending rumors.

It sadly appears that she has likely found another victim.”

Evidence from the UK High Court’s “Open Justice”

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for wearing micro-skirts

and seductively trying to reveal her undergarments in the workplace,

for which she was reprimanded and fired/sacked by her happily-married male boss.

Julie Dipuppo/Rufo’s penchant for wearing micro-dresses which reveal her undergarments,

which a female High Court Judge ruled as being sexually provocativeandinappropriate.