I don't think the fact that Med gave Chapo money establishes that she was defrauded. From what you've described, she repeatedly initiated contact and payments herself, had her own expectations about what the money might lead to, and continued giving even though she knew Chapo might not meet those expectations. She also seemed willing to accept relatively little interaction as long as she could maintain some sense of connection with him.
If Chapo actually made a specific false representation to get the money, then that's different. But Chapo not fulfilling something Med hoped the money would accomplish isn't automatically a false pretense if he never promised that outcome.
Screenshots could be evidence of what was said, but they don't establish the full context by themselves, that they weren't altered, what Chapo intended when he said something, or that Med paid because of a knowingly false representation. With years-long gaps and Med frequently being the one initiating, there's even more reason to distinguish her expectations from promises Chapo actually made.
And when Med says she could "play the diagnosed angle," that makes me think the diagnosis is being considered as a way to strengthen the accusation rather than as evidence that establishes what happened. A diagnosis could be relevant to vulnerability, but it doesn't establish that Chapo deceived her.
So I don't see enough here to conclude that Chapo defrauded her. At most, there could be an unhealthy or exploitative dynamic between two people with very different expectations. That's not the same thing as establishing fraud.
